Liars Still Walking Around In The White House

[ECW]

Libby Not the Only Liar
by Cynthia Tucker

It's too bad I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is likely to be the only Bush-Cheney confidant prosecuted for an aversion to the truth. There are plenty of unindicted liars walking the halls of the Bush White House.

Not a week goes by without a Bush administration spokesperson uttering a sentence or two that stretches credibility to the breaking point. Clearly, though, the most outrageous fabrications and most scurrilous falsehoods of the past six years were told in defense of the decision to invade Iraq.

Mr. Libby's defenders have pointed out, ad nauseam, that he was not charged with outing former CIA agent Valerie Plame - the incident that led to Mr. Libby's indictment. He was convicted on four counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

Still, his trial exposed the shameless scheming and skulduggery by which a debased administration sought one simple end: hiding the truth about the run-up to the war in Iraq. They were willing to do whatever it took to discredit Ms. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, because he called them on 16 words in a presidential speech. As Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Mr. Libby was a central player in the smear campaign.

You may recall those 16 words, uttered by President Bush during the State of the Union address Jan. 28, 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In October 2002, the CIA had warned Stephen Hadley, then Condoleezza Rice's assistant at the National Security Council, against including those words in a presidential speech because the claim looked shaky.

Bush administration apologists have tried mightily to make the case that the White House made an honest mistake about Mr. Hussein's capabilities with weapons of mass destruction. They point out that most intelligence experts, here and abroad, believed that Iraq had amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. That may be true. But it's also beside the point.

The Bush team knew they never could have sold American voters on an invasion of Iraq just because Mr. Hussein had illicit weapons. So they decided to distort and dissemble. The fabrications used to justify the invasion were those linking Iraq to al-Qaida, those claiming Mr. Hussein had unmanned drones that could be used to attack American cities, and those declaring that Mr. Hussein was "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons," as Mr. Cheney put it.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell accepted the assignment of giving an all-important speech at the United Nations in February 2003. Mr. Bush chose him because the president knew Mr. Powell had more credibility than the rest of them. Mr. Powell knew he was being used. He also knew better than to believe the text of his speech.

In February 2001, Mr. Powell told reporters at a press conference in Cairo that sanctions had worked to contain Mr. Hussein. Still, Mr. Powell dutifully followed orders and laid out a sham case against Mr. Hussein, replete with liters of anthrax, tons of chemical agents and the nonsense about unmanned drones being used against American cities. He also repeated the Bush administration's favorite tall tale: a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.

By the time of the invasion, most Americans supported the war. Of course, most Americans believed Mr. Hussein had been actively involved in 9/11 - which is exactly what Mr. Bush had intended.

Among a dwindling group of voters, Mr. Bush is still revered as an upright and moral man, still credited with having the values and virtues that any decent person should respect. But morality encompasses more than sexual fidelity, more than sobriety after years of reckless drinking. It also encompasses honor, integrity and candor - especially in an enterprise such as war.

Mr. Bush took the nation to war on a web of lies, sacrificing the lives of men and women who took him at his word. There is precious little honor or integrity in that.

Cynthia Tucker (http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0312-24.htm) is editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Her column appears Mondays in The Sun.

The White House appears to be full of liars and people who will sacrifice the safety of our country for their own political gain. It's the Neocon way, I guess.

[Stoner]

This reads like something out of Kos.

I'll wait for a bipartisan version.

[ECW]

This reads like something out of Kos.

I'll wait for a bipartisan version.


You wouldn't know bipartisan if it bit you in the ass. Truth hurts when presented in drug free form, eh?

[BoogyMan]

Stoner this is another liberal hit piece from commondreams.org. The site header says that it is "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community." This is the equivalent of posting articles from a specifically conservative site such as Newsmax, a site which the liberals would decry.

This is a shining example of hypocrisy.

If this kind of garbage continues to be posted as a credible source I would imagine that we should start posting from Newsmax and other sites of equal partisan leanings and expecting our liberal friends to accept it as they expect us to accept commondreams.org.

[potter]

This reads like something out of Kos.

I'll wait for a bipartisan version.



What source would you trust? High Times?

[Buck Laser]

Boog, I thought Cynthia Tucker wrote for the Atlanta Constitution. If common dreams picks her up, is that any worse than if National Review picks up George Will? You seem constantly to act as if partisanship is an exclusively democratic activity. We republicans can be pretty partisan too. Just look in your mirror. Then start trying to address the issues instead of telling the liberals how partisan they are.

[BoogyMan]

Boog, I thought Cynthia Tucker wrote for the Atlanta Constitution. If common dreams picks her up, is that any worse than if National Review picks up George Will? You seem constantly to act as if partisanship is an exclusively democratic activity. We republicans can be pretty partisan too. Just look in your mirror. Then start trying to address the issues instead of telling the liberals how partisan they are.


Buck, the link in the article is to commondreams.org. She may write for the AC as well, but this article is sourced from commondreams as a reprint from the Baltimore Sun.

Post a credible source and I will address it gladly. Post garbage like this from commondreams and I will gladly point out the nature of the source.

What would your commentary be if I began to source articles from Newsmax or from a conservative blog? You know you would be all over it.

Think about it.

[Buck Laser]

[quote=Buck Laser]
Buck, the link in the article is to commondreams.org. She may write for the AC as well, but this article is sourced from commondreams as a reprint from the Baltimore Sun.

Post a credible source and I will address it gladly. Post garbage like this from commondreams and I will gladly point out the nature of the source.

What would your commentary be if I began to source articles from Newsmax or from a conservative blog? You know you would be all over it.

Think about it.

So, then it's OK to trash Stoner's stuff, which nearly always comes from a partisan site. Would you have trashed Ms. Tucker's article had it been sourced to the Atlanta paper, which is almost surely where it was initially published? I got a nickel that says you would, because you're generally all over anything you disagree with.

[BoogyMan]

[quote=Buck Laser]
Buck, the link in the article is to commondreams.org. She may write for the AC as well, but this article is sourced from commondreams as a reprint from the Baltimore Sun.

Post a credible source and I will address it gladly. Post garbage like this from commondreams and I will gladly point out the nature of the source.

What would your commentary be if I began to source articles from Newsmax or from a conservative blog? You know you would be all over it.

Think about it.

So, then it's OK to trash Stoner's stuff, which nearly always comes from a partisan site. Would you have trashed Ms. Tucker's article had it been sourced to the Atlanta paper, which is almost surely where it was initially published? I got a nickel that says you would, because you're generally all over anything you disagree with.


If you want to debate Stoner or question his sources that is what the site is for Buck, and I am sure that Stoner would have no problem debating you on any point you wish to bring up.

Now, instead of veiled personal insults, how about answering my question? If you are going to ask me to accept this kind of source (commondreams.org) are you prepared for me to demand that you accept sources such as Newsmax or conservative blogs?

[lily]

Just so I can keep track.........the Baltimore Sun not a credible source? It's so hard to keep track of what is allowed and what isn't anymore. Either way, again I notice another article not being discussed but the thread hyjacked.

Sad, truly sad. Just a suggestion? If you can't debate the article, don't trash the entire thread........just skip it.

[BoogyMan]

Just so I can keep track.........the Baltimore Sun not a credible source? It's so hard to keep track of what is allowed and what isn't anymore. Either way, again I notice another article not being discussed but the thread hyjacked.

Sad, truly sad. Just a suggestion? If you can't debate the article, don't trash the entire thread........just skip it.


I think you are missing the point I am trying to make lily. I have seen you balk at discussing something posted from Newsmax, and others as well. I guess liberal sources of questionable repute get a pass where conservative ones do not? That is what I am trying to point out here. It is hypocritical.

[lily]

I'm not sure what part of it's a re-print from Baltimore Sun you're not understanding boogy. Either way.........it's just another thread ruined, when we already have one thread open to discuss sources.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.tucker12mar12,0,1313280.story?track=rss

[BoogyMan]

I'm not sure what part of it's a re-print from Baltimore Sun you're not understanding boogy. Either way.........it's just another thread ruined, when we already have one thread open to discuss sources.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.tucker12mar12,0,1313280.story?track=rss


I guess firstly that I would have to disagree that the thread is somehow ruined as that is little more than an appeal to emotion.

Secondly it is a liberal hit piece that has been sourced from commondreams.org, I have and will continue to reject that site as a source just as you have rejected abject partisan sites such as Newsmax.

Will you now answer the question about sites such as Newsmax if you are going to defend sites like commondreams.org?

Please? Pretty please?

[ECW]

Stoner this is another liberal hit piece from commondreams.org. The site header says that it is "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community." This is the equivalent of posting articles from a specifically conservative site such as Newsmax, a site which the liberals would decry.

This is a shining example of hypocrisy.

If this kind of garbage continues to be posted as a credible source I would imagine that we should start posting from Newsmax and other sites of equal partisan leanings and expecting our liberal friends to accept it as they expect us to accept commondreams.org.


This "garbage" as you call it, is the product of a columnist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The difference between Commondreams and Newsmax is Commondreams passes along material from numerous sources to progressive and Liberal readers that may not have seen it in the original source. Newsmax takes similar stories, rewrites them, and passes them off as their own. They leave out material they don't like and publish the rest which makes their "reporting" suspect at best and worthless in total. The difference between Commondreams and Newsmax is CD is the full course meal served to you at a table where Newsmax is retrieving scraps of that same meal from the garbage and serving them up as the original full course meal.

Here is the link to the original column. (https://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2007/03/09/0311edtuck.html) Maybe now you can stop Shooting The Messenger and either comment on the story or just move along. Either one suits me. But you have to stop whining about sources you don't like. Stuff your hypocrisy charge in your wazoo.

On edit: if you want to keep whining about sources, I'll make sure to challenge each and every story posted here by a conservative that comes from a source that I don't care for and give you a serious case of Shooting The Messenger. Stoner posts crap from Drudge, Newsmax, and a host of conservative sources and I don't see you in his face whining about those. Chess does his fair share of questionable sourcing as well but, again, there is silence about the source of his rantings. Wanna still talk about hypocrisy? How about Shooting the Messenger? How about you just comment on the story?

[Stoner]

Did I actually just see someone try to make an argument that commondreams is a legitimate news source?

[ECW]

No. It's a referral service. The New York Times is a legitimate news source. You remember, the paper you used the other day in citing the article about Al Gore.

And another conservative that can't comment on the story itself...

Typical.

[Stoner]

And another conservative that can't comment on the story itself...

Typical.


You mean like if a thread is entitled, 'Hillary Emailing Attacks on Gonzales as Political Tool' and you respond with...

Unless you read the newspaper today and saw an article on some guy named George W Bush. His picture is in the dictionary next to the word "hypocrite."

Is that the kind of example you're looking for in regards to changing the subject, ECW?

[BoogyMan]

This "garbage" as you call it, is the product of a columnist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The difference between Commondreams and Newsmax is Commondreams passes along material from numerous sources to progressive and Liberal readers that may not have seen it in the original source. Newsmax takes similar stories, rewrites them, and passes them off as their own. They leave out material they don't like and publish the rest which makes their "reporting" suspect at best and worthless in total. The difference between Commondreams and Newsmax is CD is the full course meal served to you at a table where Newsmax is retrieving scraps of that same meal from the garbage and serving them up as the original full course meal.

Common Dreams is a liberal hit site. I will NEVER accept content it posts as legitimate.

Your newsmax comments are EXACTLY how I feel about common dreams.

Here is the link to the original column.[/url] Maybe now you can stop Shooting The Messenger and either comment on the story or just move along. Either one suits me. But you have to stop whining about sources you don't like. Stuff your hypocrisy charge in your wazoo.

Where exactly is the wazoo ECW? I keep hearing you tell me to put things there but cannot seem to find it!

On edit: if you want to keep whining about sources, I'll make sure to challenge each and every story posted here by a conservative that comes from a source that I don't care for and give you a serious case of Shooting The Messenger. Stoner posts crap from Drudge, Newsmax, and a host of conservative sources and I don't see you in his face whining about those. Chess does his fair share of questionable sourcing as well but, again, there is silence about the source of his rantings. Wanna still talk about hypocrisy? How about Shooting the Messenger? How about you just comment on the story?


ECW, if a story is posted from a questionable source like Common Dreams you SHOULD question it. As for the article? You want me to believe you knew it was syndicated but chose to source it from Common Dreams?

[ECW]

Like I said, it came from the AJC. Now you have the citation. I guess you have nothing to say about the liars in the White House. I didn't think you would.

[BoogyMan]

Like I said, it came from the AJC. Now you have the citation. I guess you have nothing to say about the liars in the White House. I didn't think you would.


That isn't where you got it though ECW, is it? :D

[ECW]

And another conservative that can't comment on the story itself...

Typical.


You mean like if a thread is entitled, 'Hillary Emailing Attacks on Gonzales as Political Tool' and you respond with...

Unless you read the newspaper today and saw an article on some guy named George W Bush. His picture is in the dictionary next to the word "hypocrite."

Is that the kind of example you're looking for in regards to changing the subject, ECW?


I responded to Boogy's claim about Hillary. That opens the door to your boy George. The ultimate hypocrite.

Her dishonesty and her hypocrisy is at a level that this country has never seen.


Try posting the entire post IN CONTEXT if you want to try and bash me. Case dismissed.

[Labrocca]

You want discussion on that article here it is.

They point out that most intelligence experts, here and abroad, believed that Iraq had amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. That may be true. But it's also beside the point.

Ugh...no that's the entire point. They concede it's true that most intelligence experts HERE AND ABROAD believed IRAQ had AMASSED STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.

HELLO ....HELLO! That's 100% the point. That's exactly the difference from being liar and being mistaken. The article is designed to say the Bush administration is full of liars including our President. Which simply isn't true even by their own admission. A mistake is NOT a lie.

The White House appears to be full of liars and people who will sacrifice the safety of our country for their own political gain. It's the Neocon way, I guess.

And maybe you need to read up on what a neocon is.

Neoconservative: Definition and views

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism[1]:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.


If you feel those are negative views and beliefs that's fine. But make sure you understand the definition of words you use.

I am a neocon and DAMN ASS PROUD of it too!

[BoogyMan]

Neoconservative: Definition and views

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism[1]:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.


If you feel those are negative views and beliefs that's fine. But make sure you understand the definition of words you use.

I am a neocon and DAMN ASS PROUD of it too!


You know what Labrocca? This is an excellent post. I have seen ECW use neocon as a pejorative for so long that I had let the definition of Neoconservatism slip my mind. It used to bother me, but after reading this I think that I will have to claim Neoconservatism proudly.

Thanks for the reminder! :D

[Labrocca]

Neoconservative: Definition and views

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism[1]:
1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture.
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.



If you feel those are negative views and beliefs that's fine. But make sure you understand the definition of words you use.

I am a neocon and DAMN ASS PROUD of it too!


You know what Labrocca? This is an excellent post. I have seen ECW use neocon as a pejorative for so long that I had let the definition of Neoconservatism slip my mind. It used to bother me, but after reading this I think that I will have to claim Neoconservatism proudly.

Thanks for the reminder! :D


Yeah I think his use of neocon is part of an attempt by the left to follow in the footsteps of the right by using a label in a derogatory manner..such as "liberal" and how it's become a dirty word. I personally don't see liberal as a dirty word nor do I see neocon as one either. Read the wikipedia page on neoconservatism. It's full of good insightful information into the movement 90% I support.

[lily]

Ugh...no that's the entire point. They concede it's true that most intelligence experts HERE AND ABROAD believed IRAQ had AMASSED STOCKPILES OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.

HELLO ....HELLO! That's 100% the point. That's exactly the difference from being liar and being mistaken. The article is designed to say the Bush administration is full of liars including our President. Which simply isn't true even by their own admission. A mistake is NOT a lie.

As was shown in the Libby case, those 16 words that Bush put in his SOTU speech were a lie, Labrocca. They knew it and still choose to pu them in.

You know, I'm not going to debate whether he was a liar or just totally inept..........but come on, it's one or the other. Because of eiter the poor intel, or plain out and out lies, , no one will believe a word he says about Iran.

Now where exactly are thos WMD that you were talking about?
Inept or liar........your choice.

If you feel those are negative views and beliefs that's fine. But make sure you understand the definition of words you use.

I am a neocon and DAMN ASS PROUD of it too!

Then exactly what is the problem?

[Labrocca]

If you feel those are negative views and beliefs that's fine. But make sure you understand the definition of words you use.

I am a neocon and DAMN ASS PROUD of it too!

Then exactly what is the problem?


The problem is his inference and outright statement of his idea of a neocon.

The White House appears to be full of liars and people who will sacrifice the safety of our country for their own political gain. It's the Neocon way, I guess.

So in his statement he says neocons are liars and will sacrfice the safety of our country for political gain. I confront his original statement staight on by CORRECTING his use of the word and assumptions of it's meaning. Neocons are as a matter of FACT complete opposite of his assumption that they will sacrifice our country for political gain. I would even say they use political gain to PROTECT our nation...that's a neocon!

As for those 16 words...something that isn't true is NOT a lie. As the actual orginal article states and already I have quoted...that it's true the MAJORITY OF WORLD INTELLIGENCE BELIEVED THE SAME DAMN THING INCLUDING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Now this is POST 9/11...are you telling me that we should have just taken our chances at this point? The entire world viewed Hussein as a threat. The UN security council voted to use force...then backed off when the time came to actually use it (pussies as usual).

Was Iraq a mistake...maybe. We all lie...we have ALL told a lie at some point. It's a foolish person that thinks there is even 1 politician that hasn't lied, mispoken or exaggerated including the Clintons.

The original article is nothing but a lefty propaganda piece in order to undermine the Bush Administration. It's slanted to say the least. They have a clear agenda and that's to make Bush look as bad as possible despite them knowing full well the real truth and pointing it out in their article.

If you want to say the war suck and lets end it...fine say that. Hashing up a speech from 5 years ago is dumb. The lefties have said the same tiring thing again and again...boring to say the least and disengenious too.

Now the Dems are in power...I don't see us leaving Iraq? Instead I see them pushing hard to make GOPers look bad by firing lawyers, starting committees, and making press releases. Have they voted yet about cutting the funding for Iraq? NOPE...why not? Because they are smart enough to know it's a dumb ass idea...even though it is a good portion of why they won. The repeated statements that this war was mishandled...fine...Rummy is out..now what? I haven't see one iota of progress in the war. NONE.

That whole article is a joke starting with it's title...

[lily]

The problem is his inference and outright statement of his idea of a neocon.

Words on a computer screen, that's all they are. I don't know how many times I've read dirty, lying, stupid, filthy liberals here......not to mention Chess' invented word. If didn't know better, I would think your anger is misplaced and you are venting.




As for those 16 words...something that isn't true is NOT a lie.

WHAT????????


As the actual orginal article states and already I have quoted...that it's true the MAJORITY OF WORLD INTELLIGENCE BELIEVED THE SAME DAMN THING INCLUDING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Now this is POST 9/11...are you telling me that we should have just taken our chances at this point? The entire world viewed Hussein as a threat. The UN security council voted to use force...then backed off when the time came to actually use it (pussies as usual).

Actually the entire world didn't........

Was Iraq a mistake...maybe. We all lie...we have ALL told a lie at some point. It's a foolish person that thinks there is even 1 politician that hasn't lied, mispoken or exaggerated including the Clintons.

Are you now saying that Bush lied, I mean if we all lie.......

The original article is nothing but a lefty propaganda piece in order to undermine the Bush Administration. It's slanted to say the least. They have a clear agenda and that's to make Bush look as bad as possible despite them knowing full well the real truth and pointing it out in their article.

Well, then I'm glad we're discussing it.

If you want to say the war suck and lets end it...fine say that. Hashing up a speech from 5 years ago is dumb. The lefties have said the same tiring thing again and again...boring to say the least and disengenious too.

Actually hashing up a speech from 5 years that got us into this war, is extremely relevent.

Now the Dems are in power...I don't see us leaving Iraq? Instead I see them pushing hard to make GOPers look bad by firing lawyers, starting committees, and making press releases. Have they voted yet about cutting the funding for Iraq? NOPE...why not? Because they are smart enough to know it's a dumb ass idea...even though it is a good portion of why they won. The repeated statements that this war was mishandled...fine...Rummy is out..now what? I haven't see one iota of progress in the war. NONE.

Yes, I have posted my disproval of this congress and their lack of balls on Iraq, many times. The fact that they can't get their act together is pissing me off.

That whole article is a joke starting with it's title...

Yeah, well I could say that about a lot of articles, but if we didn't have them, then there would be no forums.

[Labrocca]

Words on a screen? Sorry but if it wasn't for words we would not civilized.

What is a lie?

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.


What is true? Read for yourself....
http://www.answers.com/true

Now a lie requires intent....truth does not. When one is NOT true (the opposite of wrong) it is NOT the same as a lie. Being incorrect doesn't make you a liar. It just means your gullible, stupid, or misinformed. You can take your pick of one of those to call Bush and his administration but liars? No...it's not the truth. Now that site does this deliberately since they mention the facts if only briefly...so now we KNOW they are lying hence they are not a viable site to gather information from. When a news source deliberately lies to it's audience they should be discredited and discounted.

And true the "entire world" didn't....it was an overstatement on my part. Let me quote the article one more time.

...most intelligence experts, here and abroad, believed that Iraq had amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Now that imho included some of the top intellegence agencies of the world...such as MI5, CIA, and the UN itself. Reports of Hussein having weapons and seeking them were widely published for YEARS before Bush was even President.

Do I think Cheney and Bush actively sought war...possibly...it fits the neoconservative philosophy of spreading Democracy and confronting evil. However the conspiracy theorist with the Halliburton, Oil Agenda, and 9/11 being an American coverup are rather laughable. We do not need to create evil for there to be evil in this world.

As for CWN and your reference to him and his usage of "liberal" that's not my fight. He is not on the opposite spectrum and debating him is like pissing on my own leg (accidentally this happens sometimes). That's a liberals job to defend the word and it's use...certainly not mine. From the definitions I read of liberal and the overall meaning that I understand. It's often used correctly here even if in intentions it's meant as a slur. I used to accept neocon as one...I no longer will do that. Neocon I am and Neocon I am proud to be. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hate...I suggest people stop being ignorant.

Actually hashing up a speech from 5 years that got us into this war, is extremely relevent.

Can you tell me why it's relevant? Can you explain what the goal is of this article if not to slander the administration? Why not bring up Reagan or Bush Senior while you are at it. There comes a point when something is moot. I think when the Dems took power....that was the day. If they wanted to do something about "the speech" they would have done so by now.

I am not saying Bush lied.. I am saying "what if" he did? Who cares at this point!

[lily]

Words on a screen? Sorry but if it wasn't for words we would not civilized.

Fine, if that's the way you choose to take words, then I guess I'll start doing the same. It takes a lot to ignore the insults, this will just make my life easier. I just thought we were trying to clean up the forum.



And true the "entire world" didn't....it was an overstatement on my part. Let me quote the article one more time.

...most intelligence experts, here and abroad, believed that Iraq had amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Well, let me just jot down the two main ones that told us we were wrong, Germany and France. Sure they got villified and some went through a phase not uttering the word French Fries, but it doesn't change the fact that not only did they tell us we were wrong, but refused to join us. Who's having the last laugh now?

Please don't make me get a list of the actual coalition of the willing!

Now that imho included some of the top intellegence agencies of the world...such as MI5, CIA, and the UN itself. Reports of Hussein having weapons and seeking them were widely published for YEARS before Bush was even President.
Forgive me for my stupidity, I don't know who the MI5 is. We now know that Cheney visted the Pentagon on at least 5 occasions and that Rumsfailed kept sending papers back that didn't support what he wanted. We pulled the UN inspectors out before they were done. At that time they found nothing.

Do I think Cheney and Bush actively sought war...possibly...it fits the neoconservative philosophy of spreading Democracy and confronting evil. However the conspiracy theorist with the Halliburton, Oil Agenda, and 9/11 being an American coverup are rather laughable. We do not need to create evil for there to be evil in this world.

Well......we were told at the begining of Bush's term, while he was still campaigning, that he was not a nation builder. As for Halliburton and the oil theory..........they're still working in Iran......complete with sanctions put on Iran. So you do the math. As for the 911 cover up. I don't think you'd find one post where I have claimed that.

As for CWN and your reference to him and his usage of "liberal" that's not my fight. He is not on the opposite spectrum and debating him is like pissing on my own leg (accidentally this happens sometimes). That's a liberals job to defend the word and it's use...certainly not mine. From the definitions I read of liberal and the overall meaning that I understand. It's often used correctly here even if in intentions it's meant as a slur. I used to accept neocon as one...I no longer will do that. Neocon I am and Neocon I am proud to be. Ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hate...I suggest people stop being ignorant.

I have no problem being called a liberal. It's the adjectives they put in front of the word, that I am talking about........and it's not just Chess.


Can you tell me why it's relevant? Can you explain what the goal is of this article if not to slander the administration? Why not bring up Reagan or Bush Senior while you are at it. There comes a point when something is moot.

It was a lie that got us into this war. You may think it's moot, but most Americans don't.

I think when the Dems took power....that was the day. If they wanted to do something about "the speech" they would have done so by now.

It's only been 2 months. They're working on it. I have a feeling there will be a "scandle a week"

I am not saying Bush lied.. I am saying "what if" he did? Who cares at this point!

I DO. History will and about %80 of American citizens do. If we don't know, how can we avoid this again?

[Labrocca]

It was a lie that got us into this war. You may think it's moot, but most Americans don't.

And I showed you that by definition he did NOT LIE. It was incorrect information that got us into a war. Information that most intelligency agencies here and abroad agreed with. The intelligence community took the hit on this one...not Bush even though he is vilified by the left. Personally...I don't care we invaded Iraq. F that place. And I don't care if we leave tomorrow. What does concern me is the TRUTH. It's one thing for an article to show it's skepticism..it's another to actually LIE about our President and his administration.

Well, let me just jot down the two main ones that told us we were wrong, Germany and France.
Actually they agreed with us that Iraq was a problem. What they didn't agree with was the invasion. This coming from a country that has NEVER won a war and another that started 2 world wars within a 40 year period and isn't allowed to even have a national army anymore. Also France was doing back-door deals with Iraq for Oil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

Oil for Food explained to laymen (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/11/putting-oil-for-food-in-perspective.php)


We pulled the UN inspectors out before they were done. At that time they found nothing.

Incorrect...if you really remember the TRUTH it's that Hussein was hampering the efforts of UN inspectors further fueling the speculation that he was hiding something.

Here read some of this great stuff:

Saddam bribes UN WMD inspectors (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html)

Actual UN resolution 1441 (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm)

Which is really a great read now.

[lily]

And I showed you that by definition he did NOT LIE. It was incorrect information that got us into a war. Information that most intelligency agencies here and abroad agreed with. The intelligence community took the hit on this one...not Bush even though he is vilified by the left. Personally...I don't care we invaded Iraq. F that place. And I don't care if we leave tomorrow. What does concern me is the TRUTH. It's one thing for an article to show it's skepticism..it's another to actually LIE about our President and his administration.

I;m not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the SOTU speech, where Bush claimed that Sadaam was getting uranium from Africa. He knew before that speech that it wasn't true, yet still put it in his speech.

Well, let me just jot down the two main ones that told us we were wrong, Germany and France.
Actually they agreed with us that Iraq was a problem. What they didn't agree with was the invasion. This coming from a country that has NEVER won a war and another that started 2 world wars within a 40 year period and isn't allowed to even have a national army anymore. Also France was doing back-door deals with Iraq for Oil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme

Oil for Food explained to laymen (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/11/putting-oil-for-food-in-perspective.php)

I'm confused, I'm not sure what the oil for food program has to do with Germany and France not believing in the intelligence?

[Pookie]

I like the original title of this. No matter who's in office, as long as we have a resident in the White House there will be liars walking the halls. Clinton had a few, too.

[BoogyMan]

I like the original title of this. No matter who's in office, as long as we have a resident in the White House there will be liars walking the halls. Clinton had a few, too.


Pookie, that is what I have been trying to get people to understand for quite some time.

Well said. I would extend it though, to say that as long as there are politicians walking around Washington, there will be liars in our government.

[Pookie]

I agree, BoogyMan. It's not just the White House. My father used to make this old joke all the time: "How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving."
Sad, but often true.

[ECW]

I like the original title of this. No matter who's in office, as long as we have a resident in the White House there will be liars walking the halls. Clinton had a few, too.


Pookie, that is what I have been trying to get people to understand for quite some time.

Well said. I would extend it though, to say that as long as there are politicians walking around Washington, there will be liars in our government.


Whenever we talk about the shortcomings of this administration on this forum, someone always brings up old Bubba.

"Bubba done wrong, too, you know. He lied about that fat girl he was getting some from. He lied about a bunch of stuff."

It's almost as if this is the secret mantra of every Neocon on this board when it comes to the Chimpster and his band of trained monkeys: We have to provide CONTEXT for the lies so we can mitigate their seriousness.

Waa, waaa, waa, waa, waa.

What a load of crap. Bush and his Neocons have taken lying to a whole new level. They lied about the reasons we went to war. They lied about the reasons they couldn't provide armor for our troops once they were on the ground in Iraq. They lied about exposing a CIA agent for political gain. They lied about torturing people. They lied about not torturing people. They lied about where they did all this and where they didn't. They lied about the care they said they were giving to our troops once they were wounded. It appears they lied about damn near everything and the response we get is "Bubba lied, too."

One significant difference: when Bubba lied, no one died.

[ECW]

My father used to make this old joke all the time: "How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving." Sad, but often true.

Actually, the first time I heard this was when Bobby Kennedy said this about LBJ. I was but a boy but I thought it was pretty funny nevertheless.

[BoogyMan]

Whenever we talk about the shortcomings of this administration on this forum, someone always brings up old Bubba.

"Bubba done wrong, too, you know. He lied about that fat girl he was getting some from. He lied about a bunch of stuff."

It's almost as if this is the secret mantra of every Neocon on this board when it comes to the Chimpster and his band of trained monkeys: We have to provide CONTEXT for the lies so we can mitigate their seriousness.

Waa, waaa, waa, waa, waa.

What a load of crap. Bush and his Neocons have taken lying to a whole new level. They lied about the reasons we went to war. They lied about the reasons they couldn't provide armor for our troops once they were on the ground in Iraq. They lied about exposing a CIA agent for political gain. They lied about torturing people. They lied about not torturing people. They lied about where they did all this and where they didn't. They lied about the care they said they were giving to our troops once they were wounded. It appears they lied about damn near everything and the response we get is "Bubba lied, too."

One significant difference: when Bubba lied, no one died.


This kind of excruciatingly assumptive and uninformed commentary is the reason you get to preach to the choir so often ECW. :)

I will have to admit that I now take it as an honor to be called a Neoconservative.

[ECW]

This kind of excruciatingly assumptive and uninformed commentary is the reason you get to preach to the choir so often ECW. :)

No more uninformed than a person who spends a whole week asserting that things were as bad in the 1960's at Walter Reed as they are today but never could come up with a citation to prove that claim. I was at WR during that time and I never saw any cockroaches, mold covered walls or vermin in the vicinity or in the hospital itself. You never could prove your contextual assertion and you come around to call me "uninformed?" Yeah, sure. OK, pal. Whatever.

I will have to admit that I now take it as an honor to be called a Neoconservative.

So noted. Don't think for a second, however, that Kristol's definition of what a Neocon is becomes the end-all definition of what a Neocon REALLY is. His is merely the first layer of what is a multi-layered definition and none of them particularly admirable once you get past the original.

Please continue the proud Neocon tradition, then, of blaming everything that has gone wrong with the current administration on the Clinton administration because that's what a Neocon does. Also, continue to justify lying to achieve a political end, to justify lying to cover up incompetence, to justify lying to protect child predators, and to justify lying to save Chimpy's sorry ass and you'll be right at home with the Neocon crowd. I thought you were different, somehow better and I hesitate to associate you with all that is negative and politically vile about this administration even when requested to do so but if you insist...

[Stoner]

Whenever we talk about the shortcomings of this administration on this forum, someone always brings up old Bubba.

You mean how everytime someone discusses any lib liar you change the topic and start bashing Bush?

when Bubba lied, no one died.


Great. Now he's quoting bumper stickers.

[Elrathin]

I will have to admit that I now take it as an honor to be called a Neoconservative.


So you favor that biblical law should be the prevalent law in the U.S. eh?

[ECW]

Whenever we talk about the shortcomings of this administration on this forum, someone always brings up old Bubba.

You mean how everytime someone discusses any lib liar you change the topic and start bashing Bush?

No. I mean exactly what I said, not what you think I said. Funny you calling anyone a "lib liar" when the Master of Liars is your boy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. See? You did it in reverse this time but you did it again.

when Bubba lied, no one died.


Great. Now he's quoting bumper stickers.


Accurate bumper stickers. I had one for you, too, but Labrocca asked me to play nice. Lucky you.

[BoogyMan]

No more uninformed than a person who spends a whole week asserting that things were as bad in the 1960's at Walter Reed as they are today but never could come up with a citation to prove that claim. I was at WR during that time and I never saw any cockroaches, mold covered walls or vermin in the vicinity or in the hospital itself. You never could prove your contextual assertion and you come around to call me "uninformed?" Yeah, sure. OK, pal. Whatever.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. You have twisted my line of argumentation on this point such that I no longer care if you understand my meaning. It is a well known fact that veterans have never had the quality of care they deserved and that kind of complacency setup the context for Walter Reed. You wish to twist those words in multiple threads for less than honorable puprposes? That is fine by me. Don't expect a response your commentary doesn't rate.

So noted. Don't think for a second, however, that Kristol's definition of what a Neocon is becomes the end-all definition of what a Neocon REALLY is. His is merely the first layer of what is a multi-layered definition and none of them particularly admirable once you get past the original.

I am well aware of your intention to continue its use as a pejorative ECW. The simple fact is, I no longer care.

Please continue the proud Neocon tradition, then, of blaming everything that has gone wrong with the current administration on the Clinton administration because that's what a Neocon does. Also, continue to justify lying to achieve a political end, to justify lying to cover up incompetence, to justify lying to protect child predators, and to justify lying to save Chimpy's sorry ass and you'll be right at home with the Neocon crowd. I thought you were different, somehow better and I hesitate to associate you with all that is negative and politically vile about this administration even when requested to do so but if you insist...


This is a particularly gymnastic form of twisting my words ECW. Pookie and I admit that ALL in Washington have some larceny in their hearts and you twist that into me blaming what you see as the faults of the Bush administration on the Clinton administration?

This is complete hogwash, you need to go back to the rhetorical well because your bucket didn't get filled and you got hosed on that last one.

[Pookie]

Whoa, wait a minute. I did not mean for this to happen and all this. I was merely saying it happens in every administration.
Geez, what is wrong with that? It's true. So I brought up Clinton.
Okay to make it fair, let's bring up Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and...?
Does that forgive the sin of my uttering the name "Clinton?" Hope so. For further information, google presidents. There are many more liars to choose from there.

[ECW]

It is a well known fact that veterans have never had the quality of care they deserved and that kind of complacency setup the context for Walter Reed.

Don't confuse typical army red tape, do-it-in-triplicate, hurry up and wait snafus (which is what you were trying to claim this all was) with the decision by the Bushies to privatize auxilliary care at Building 18 which led to the aforementioned scandal. Virtually every military hospital has its problems with the bureaucracy but they do not have a mold problem, a infestation problem or a vermin problem the way Building 18 does. I refused to allow you to combine those two problems while you insisted that it was all in the context. It isn't. It wasn't. And it never will be.

I am well aware of your intention to continue its use as a pejorative ECW. The simple fact is, I no longer care.

...and I never did. "Neocon" to us is what "Liberal" is to you. Funny how that worm turns, eh?

[BoogyMan]

Don't confuse typical army red tape, do-it-in-triplicate, hurry up and wait snafus (which is what you were trying to claim this all was) with the decision by the Bushies to privatize auxilliary care at Building 18 which led to the aforementioned scandal. Virtually every military hospital has its problems with the bureaucracy but they do not have a mold problem, a infestation problem or a vermin problem the way Building 18 does. I refused to allow you to combine those two problems while you insisted that it was all in the context. It isn't. It wasn't. And it never will be.

You are still desperate to limit the scope of my commentary ECW, and as such I am done with you.

...and I never did. "Neocon" to us is what "Liberal" is to you. Funny how that worm turns, eh?

Read my commentary ECW, I use the word "liberal" sparingly. Most of the time I use the term "left" or "left of center." Done. with. you.