Why Bush Should be Impeached

[titan]

Originally posted by Skeptic

The innocent Japanese people, who died when Truman dropped the bomb, died unnecessarily. Truman should have been removed from office for this reason. But we were in a necessary war against a country that was a real, significant and imminent threat to America. This makes a difference.

Jackson should have been removed from office for this. But our culture was different then.

They should have been removed from office. But our culture was different then.



Nice response but it doesn't answer the question. Who was more deserving of impeachment Truman or Bush? Your statement that World War II was necessary (IYO) and the Iraq War was not is noted. However, Truman purposefully ordered the killing of hundreds of thousand of civilians. Bush has done nothing even remotely approaching this. As for your comments on Jackson et al, maybe the culture is different NOW than what you would like. Maybe that is your real problem.

titan

[theo_victis]

quote from skeptic:

But we were in a necessary war against a country that was a real, significant and imminent threat to America. This makes a difference.

so i am guessing skeptic that you would have liked to have wait for iraq to have killed thousands of americans before attacking them?

your sure mister patriotic......pbth!


So i have a question.... were terrorists before 9/11 or the first wave of terrorist attacks an immenant threat? (when i mean by first wave i am reffering to all the embasy bombings and the first world trade center bombing)

I mean according to your logic they havent done anything to us..... but if Clinton had a brain he would have wiped them out far before the first wave of attacks. And look it... because of his mistake thousands of americans are dead in america.....(9/11)

Iraq had the potential for this... there was a good case for the wmd. Lets say they did have wmd and we let them go. What would you say then after they had nuked america? Plus just because they didnt have wmd in their possesion doesnt mean they could have gotten some (by means of creating or purchasing) and used them against america. THEY WERE A THREAT STUPID!


you liberals never think ahead do you? its just the here and now.....

potential threats will become a threat tomorrow and should be removed today before they attack...

its just like cancer people... when a doctor tells a patient you have cancer in its early almost benign state does the doctor tell the patient we will wait until it grows and starts killing you before we remove it?

NO!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

I don't understand why Truman should have been removed from office. By my moral standards, I don't think killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a right way to end wars. If a majority of people disagree with me, this does not mean that my moral standards are wrong and theirs right.

Isn't this a simple question of Truman's moral standards being different from yours? I'm sure Truman's moral standards were different than mine regarding this issue. Regardless of anyone else's moral standards, it is my belief that Truman was wrong to drop the bomb on those two cities.

I think it's just a culture question. Obviously you're not in tune with the current culture. How a culture or government responds to an event depends on the collective moral standards of the majority or those in power, respectively. A majority of people can hold a particular set of moral standards, but that does not mean I need to agree with them. It just so happens that my moral standards are much more common than you think.

The moral standards of most fundies are fear-based, fairy-tale-based, and superstition-based. I don't see that as a rational criteria for basing one's moral standards.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by titan

Nice response but it doesn't answer the question. Who was more deserving of impeachment Truman or Bush? I'm not interested in getting into a "who's more deserving" game. I said I could not think of any President more deserving of impeachment than Bush. This does not mean that if I spent a lot of time studying all U.S. Presidents that I would not change my mind and think of others who might be more deserving. Perhaps, if I thought about it a good long time, I might feel other Presidents were more deserving than Bush. The fact remains that Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies failed to produce any clear hard empirical pre-invasion evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat, yet invaded anyway, unnecessarily and immorally killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process. That may not be a good enough reason for impeachment according to the right-wing controlled Congress, but it's a good enough reason for me.

However, Truman purposefully ordered the killing of hundreds of thousand of civilians. I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Bush has done nothing even remotely approaching this. Bush purposefully ordered the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Do the ends justify the means according to your moral standards?

As for your comments on Jackson et al, maybe the culture is different NOW than what you would like. Maybe that is your real problem. There are lots of things I don't like about our culture today. I'm sure you feel the same way about other aspects of our culture. You might be opposed to legalized abortion. I'm glad abortion is legal.

[theo_victis]

The moral standards of most fundies are fear-based, fairy-tale-based, and superstition-based. I don't see that as a rational criteria for basing one's moral standards.

So i suppose loving your neighbor as your self, serving others without looking for reward, being honest and trustworthy, and being a positive rolemodel in peoples lives is driven from fear, fairytaleish, and superstitious?

these things are the difference in morality between christian and nonchristian.

[theo_victis]

Bush purposefully ordered the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

i must have missed that one....

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

so i am guessing skeptic that you would have liked to have wait for iraq to have killed thousands of americans before attacking them? No. If there had been clear hard pre-war evidence that Iraq had posed a real, significant and imminent threat to America or other countries, then I would have supported firm and swift military action enough to stop such a confirmed threat.


So i have a question.... were terrorists before 9/11 or the first wave of terrorist attacks an imminent threat? (when i mean by first wave i am reffering to all the embasy bombings and the first world trade center bombing). We now know that Al Qaeda posed a significant and imminent threat to America. Steps were being taken to deal with this threat. I supported going after them in Afghanistan. I did not support the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq.

I mean according to your logic they havent done anything to us... That's not my logic about al-Qaeda. That is my logic regarding Iraq. Iraq did nothing to warrant the killing of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

... but if Clinton had a brain he would have wiped them out far before the first wave of attacks. Clinton made some attempts and failed. Bush too has made attempts and failed. If Clinton had invaded Afghanistan and taken out the Taliban and destroyed al-Qaeda training camps after the first attacks against U.S. embassy and the first failed world trade center bombing, I don't think the U.S. Congress, the American people, or the world would have supported such a military response. I don't even think most people in the U.S. military thought that al-Qaeda posed such a grave and imminent threat sufficient to justify an all-out invasion of Afghanistan.

And look it... because of his mistake thousands of americans are dead in america.....(9/11) Bush and his Administration share the blame for the failures to prevent 9/11.

In hindsight, Clinton did what he did, given the intelligence regarding the level of threat. He could have done more, if he had known more.

In hindsight, Bush did what he could to ignore the LACK of clear hard pre-invasion evidence regarding the threat Iraq posed. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and had no significant ties with al-Qaeda. This is why Bush's actions were reckless and wrong, while Clinton's actions were measured and largely appropriate. However, I did not agree with all of Clinton's actions.

Iraq had the potential for this... there was a good case for the wmd. A careful analysis of the available pre-invasion HARD evidence (as apposed to hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations) shows the case for WMD was NOT good.

Read THIS (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=614354#post614354).

Lets say they did have wmd and we let them go. What would you say then after they had nuked america? That would have been a major failure on the part of U.S. military and intelligence. But is was ALSO a major failure on the part of U.S. military and intelligence when they told Bush it was a "slam dunk." This "slam dunk" resulted in the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. However, I still think it is possible Bush knew Iraq did not pose a serious threat before he ordered his bloody invasion.

Plus just because they didnt have wmd in their possesion doesnt mean they could have gotten some (by means of creating or purchasing) and used them against america. THEY WERE A THREAT STUPID! When a careful analysis of intelligence shows that Iraq DID NOT have WMD and were years away from being able to acquire WMD (assuming Saddam was no longer boxed in and monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community - which was unlikely any time soon), then logic dictates that Iraq WAS NOT A THREAT! To suggest otherwise is irrational (i.e. "STUPID").

Pre-emptive preventive wars against nations, in the absence of clear hard pre-war evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat is immoral!


you liberals never think ahead do you? its just the here and now..... I think it is VERY wise to think ahead. But it is NOT wise to base one's actions on hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations, when such actions could result in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children!

potential threats will become a threat tomorrow and should be removed today before they attack... Real potential threats SHOULD be dealt with today! But invading countries who may pose a potential future threat, killing thousands of innocent people in the process, is immoral! We had plenty of time to explore other ways to deal with any potential threat Saddam may have posed in the future. Since we had plenty of time, the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003 was unnecessary and immoral! This cannot be repeated enough times. There are some pretty thick skulls in America.

its just like cancer people... when a doctor tells a patient you have cancer in its early almost benign state does the doctor tell the patient we will wait until it grows and starts killing you before we remove it?

NO! If I were a doctor and one method used to remove the benign tumor resulted in the collateral deaths of many other people, I would suggest to my patient that we should explore less radical alternative methods to remove the benign tumor. There was no urgent need to kill tens of thousands of innocent people, in March 2003, to remove the benign tumor that was Saddam. We had time to explore better and more ethical methods.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

So i suppose loving your neighbor as your self, serving others without looking for reward, being honest and trustworthy, and being a positive rolemodel in peoples lives is driven from fear, fairytaleish, and superstitious? Loving your neighbor as your self, serving others without looking for reward, being honest and trustworthy, and being a positive role model in people's lives pre-dates the Bible.

these things are the difference in morality between christian and nonchristian. Wrong.

The difference between Christian and non-Christian morality has to do with the belief that morals come from God, are absolute, and, if one doesn't believe in a certain way and obey the dogmatic commandments of the Bible, one will suffer eternally. Hence the fear, fairy tales and superstitions.

"The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." -- T. H. Huxley

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

i must have missed that one.... Truman knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of dropping the bomb.

Bush knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of invading Iraq with the full force of the U.S. military.

Therefore, if Truman purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed, Bush too purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed.

[titan]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I'm not interested in getting into a "who's more deserving" game. I said I could not think of any President more deserving of impeachment than Bush. This does not mean that if I spent a lot of time studying all U.S. Presidents that I would not change my mind and think of others who might be more deserving. Perhaps, if I thought about it a good long time, I might feel other Presidents were more deserving than Bush.

So, you didn't know about Hiroshima and Nagaski until I mentioned it? LOL The point is that Bush's acts are not unusual but quite normative among American presidents. The hyperbole and vitriole you spew identifies you as a propagandist rather than an honest debater.

Originally posted by Skeptic

I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Bush purposefully ordered the killing of tens of thousands of civilians. I think this was unnecessary and immoral. The ends do not justify the means.

Do the ends justify the means according to your moral standards?


Depends on what you mean by "ends" and whether you are referring to apriori or aposteriori justification. If "ends" means absolutely everything that happened due to the employing of the "means" that is a reasonable way to judge after the fact. If "ends" means goals before application of the "means" then no. One needs more than that. Sometimes one cannot fully justify a decision one way or another, but one still has to decide. That was Truman's predicament and Bush's.

Swatting Al Qaeda alone will not protect us from the next 9/11. I do not think waiting around quietly for it is reasonable. Consider the following. What if some terrorist group launches a WMD against New York? If we don't know who gave the WMDs to them, what do you think our response will be? Are you naive enough to think there will be no response? Avoiding such a scenario is of paramount importance for us as well as for the Middle East itself. Bush thinks adventures in Iraq is the way to go about this. He may be wrong. What's your solution?

Oops, I let the "Bush purposefully ordered ..." comment slip by. Do you honestly see no difference between the following orders.
1) Secure the hospital. Shoot back if fired upon. OR
2) Blow up the hospital. Kill everyone.
Hint 1) Bush, 2) Truman.

Originally posted by Skeptic

There are lots of things I don't like about our culture today. I'm sure you feel the same way about other aspects of our culture. You might be opposed to legalized abortion. I'm glad abortion is legal.

True.
I just want to know why yesterday's "culture" justifies (or excuses (ameliorates?)) Jackson, but today's "culture" does not justify or excuse Bush.

titan

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by titan

So, you didn't know about Hiroshima and Nagaski until I mentioned it? LOL The point is that Bush's acts are not unusual but quite normative among American presidents. The hyperbole and vitriole you spew identifies you as a propagandist rather than an honest debater. Even though hundred thousand+ lives were unnecessarily and immorally lost when Truman dropped the bomb on those two cities, I still think that Bush's invasion of Iraq is more deserving of impeachment than Truman's actions. When Truman dropped the bombs, America was at war with country that posed a real, significant and ongoing threat. When Bush invaded Iraq, America was NOT threatened by Iraq and the available hard evidence did not demonstrate that Iraq had any WMD or active WMD programs. Saddam had been boxed in and monitored 24/7 by U.S. and international forces. UN inspectors were doing their job and were finding nothing. Therefore, even though far more innocent lives were lost as a result of Truman's decision, the U.S. was at war. When Bush invaded Iraq, we were NOT at war. Bush STARTED a war with a country that did not pose a real, significant and imminent threat. Truman did not start the war with Japan, even though his method of ending the war was immoral. Bush actually started a war that did not need to be started. Because of this, I think that Bush's actions were more deserving of impeachment than Truman's.

And don't give me any crap about Bush's invasion of Iraq being a part of a larger "war on terrorism." That's just right-wing propaganda and nonsense.

Depends on what you mean by "ends" and whether you are referring to apriori or aposteriori justification. Bush had no clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Iraq posed a threat. Therefore, even if tomorrow Iraq became the most peace-loving and democratic country the world has ever known, this would not justify the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Sometimes one cannot fully justify a decision one way or another, but one still has to decide. That was Truman's predicament and Bush's. Truman had clear hard empirical evidence that Japan was a real, significant and ongoing threat. Bush had NO such evidence with regard to Iraq.

Swatting Al Qaeda alone will not protect us from the next 9/11. Neither will invading countries that do not pose a threat. Doing so will only increase the likelihood of another attack by increasing anti-American hatred and terrorist recruitment.

I do not think waiting around quietly for it is reasonable. Neither do I. Invading Iraq was the WRONG thing to do if our goal was to prevent the next 9/11.

Consider the following. What if some terrorist group launches a WMD against New York? If we don't know who gave the WMDs to them, what do you think our response will be? Are you naive enough to think there will be no response? What would be your response, if we did not know who gave them the WMD? Would you invade the next country suspected of having WMD, even though you have not established the source of the WMD?

Avoiding such a scenario is of paramount importance for us as well as for the Middle East itself. Bush thinks adventures in Iraq is the way to go about this. He may be wrong. I don't believe Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was planned by his neocon Pentagon buddies years ago, was designed to be part of a strategy to prevent the next terrorist attack against the U.S. I think it is likely Bush and the neocons invaded Iraq for right-wing political, economic and long-term strategic reasons, not because Iraq posed any real threat.

What's your solution? For starters, get rid of Bush and his clan.

Oops, I let the "Bush purposefully ordered ..." comment slip by. Do you honestly see no difference between the following orders.
1) Secure the hospital. Shoot back if fired upon. OR
2) Blow up the hospital. Kill everyone.
Hint 1) Bush, 2) Truman. Here's how I see it:

1) Bush - Get rid of Saddam (even though he was not a threat) and secure the oil fields. Shoot back if fired upon, even if tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children die in the process.

2) Truman - Secure America by sending a message to Japan that "resistance is futile" by killing over one hundred thousands innocent people in big bright flash!


True.
I just want to know why yesterday's "culture" justifies (or excuses (ameliorates?)) Jackson, but today's "culture" does not justify or excuse Bush. Unfortunately, much of today's culture DOES excuse Bush for his atrocity in Iraq. I don't. There was also opposition to Jackson's actions within that culture.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

By my moral standards, I don't think killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people is a right way to end wars. If a majority of people disagree with me, this does not mean that my moral standards are wrong and theirs right.
Are you asserting an absolute moral principle? :confused:

I'm sure Truman's moral standards were different than mine regarding this issue. Regardless of anyone else's moral standards, it is my belief that Truman was wrong to drop the bomb on those two cities.
Belief or moral standard? Which is it? Whose moral standard prevails? Yours or Truman's? :confused:

How a culture or government responds to an event depends on the collective moral standards of the majority or those in power, respectively. A majority of people can hold a particular set of moral standards, but that does not mean I need to agree with them. It just so happens that my moral standards are much more common than you think.
You have already argued that agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Are you now asserting that a majority opinion establishes a moral standard? :confused:

The moral standards of most fundies are fear-based, fairy-tale-based, and superstition-based. I don't see that as a rational criteria for basing one's moral standards.
Irrelevant. You have not stated any rational criteria as a basis for your moral standards. Do you have any or are your moral standards mere personal beliefs? :confused:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Are you asserting an absolute moral principle? :confused: Just because I think some moral principles are wrong, while others are right, does not mean the I think my principles are absolute. Moral relativists do not think that everything is always equally right and wrong.

Belief or moral standard? Which is it? Moral standards are beliefs.

Whose moral standard prevails? Yours or Truman's? :confused: It depends on what you mean by "prevail." A variety of factors determines whether a particular set of moral standards becomes dominant (prevails) in a society. Such factors are cultural, psychological and historical. What determines whether a particular moral standard is right or wrong is the individual. It just so happens that, because most individuals share a fairly common human experience, most people share similar moral standards.

Who is right? Me or Truman? I think I'm right. Truman thought he was right. Who was "ultimately" right? Whose moral principles were "absolutely" right? Moral principles can be right or wrong without being ultimately or absolutely so.

You have already argued that agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. Are you now asserting that a majority opinion establishes a moral standard? :confused: A majority opinion often establishes the laws of the land, not necessarily right or wrong. I think some laws are wrong.

Irrelevant. You have not stated any rational criteria as a basis for your moral standards. Do you have any or are your moral standards mere personal beliefs? :confused: When it comes to moral standards, people often disagree what constitutes as supporting rational criteria. However, if you walked up to a person who said their morals derived from Santa Claus, you might think that was an irrational basis for their moral beliefs. My moral standards are my personal beliefs (shared by millions of others), and they are not necessarily based on criteria that are derived from pure logic or science. Yet, they are not based on fear, fairy tales and superstitions, as are yours, or on Santa Claus, which is equally nonsensical/irrational.

[theo_victis]

skeptic.... who cares if you kill people they are just people! Come on now grow up. It has been natures way far longer than any liberals or Christians idea of morality. Bush believes that all people should die. So stop caring so much about other peoples lives because you should worry about yourself. If Bush wants to kill everyone dont bother getting all upset... he isnt killing you is he? Quit complaining!!

I mean come on Bush can kill whoever he wants, what if he likes it? The world is all about Bush to Bush and the world is all about you to you and me to me isnt it?

Shouldnt bush be happy? Killing makes him happy!

Oh wait..... you claim that is wrong? You claim that Bush impeading on other peoples lives is evil and wrong?

But isnt that (according to you since morals arent absolute) relative to ones opinion? Maybe in Bush's opinion morals dont matter and that he (since he is president and all) should kill people if he wants! Why should there be justice done to him if he is guilt of murder as you claim?


I am sure every living human being knows that murder is wrong (except the clinically insane who DO NOT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE). It is not an opinion it is a fact. That is why every culture has rules against this.

So you still think morals arent absolute? Of course you say! Then why would you get upset if someone came to your town and killed your family, friends, and your dog. Why would you seek justice? Maybe the murderer believed he was doing the right thing! Why would you be mad? There is no heaven or afterlife you claim, there is only one life to live and our happiness, even at the expense of others is ok then, right??

A sensible person would realize that morals are instilled values. A sensible person would realize they come only from God. A sensible person would realize that there is an afterlife and our moral decisions count for something in this life (however, not much, such as salvation).

You are not a sensible person if you continue to run circles around this morality issue.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Truman knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of dropping the bomb.

He also knew that millions of lives would be saved by ending the war. I have no problem with Truman's decision to drop the bomb. The Japs had to be stopped and killing them is better than letting them kill us.



Bush knew what the consequences of his actions would be. He knew many thousands of innocent people would die as a result of invading Iraq with the full force of the U.S. military.

Bush hardly used the full force of the US military. We have a lot more nukes than Truman had, but we didn't drop a single one in Iraq. Your pompous political propaganda is transparent. You never seem to remember that Saddam had killed Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi's. I guess it was OK for Saddam, after all, they were HIS people. And I'll remind you about the innocent Israeli's who were killed by suicide bombers paid for by Saddam. Do you have a problem with that, or is it OK for Saddam to murder Israeli's because they are Jews?



Therefore, if Truman purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed, Bush too purposefully gave his orders, knowing that innocent people would be killed.

Bush gave Saddam a chance to step down from power, Saddam declined. Any loss of life in Iraq can be attributed to Saddam, who was a terrorist. If the UN and other European countries had not been illegally profiteering from the 'Oil for Food' program, Saddam would not have felt that he had allies who would protect him via the UN and might have co operated with the US. The UN is as much to blame for the deaths of your supposed thousands as Saddam is.

Bush did the right thing by removing Saddam, thank God George Bush is our President!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because I think some moral principles are wrong, while others are right, does not mean the I think my principles are absolute. Moral relativists do not think that everything is always equally right and wrong.
Moral relativists do not think. You're right about that one.:up:

Moral standards are beliefs.
Nonsense. :down:

It depends on what you mean by "prevail." A variety of factors determines whether a particular set of moral standards becomes dominant (prevails) in a society. Such factors are cultural, psychological and historical. What determines whether a particular moral standard is right or wrong is the individual. It just so happens that, because most individuals share a fairly common human experience, most people share similar moral standards.
:cow:

Who is right? Me or Truman? I think I'm right. Truman thought he was right. Who was "ultimately" right? Whose moral principles were "absolutely" right? Moral principles can be right or wrong without being ultimately or absolutely so.
:cow:

A majority opinion often establishes the laws of the land, not necessarily right or wrong. I think some laws are wrong.
Laws of the land = morals? :idea: Now, we're getting somewhere!

When it comes to moral standards, people often disagree what constitutes as supporting rational criteria. However, if you walked up to a person who said their morals derived from Santa Claus, you might think that was an irrational basis for their moral beliefs. My moral standards are my personal beliefs (shared by millions of others), and they are not necessarily based on criteria that are derived from pure logic or science. Yet, they are not based on fear, fairy tales and superstitions, as are yours, or on Santa Claus, which is equally nonsensical/irrational.
And then you spoil it all with your incessant broken-record screed. :(

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

And then you spoil it all with your incessant broken-record screed. :(


That is Skeptic's primary tactic, constant repetition of the same, lame propaganda. He still denies that Saddam was a terrorist or that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. :down:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by BillyBob

That is Skeptic's primary tactic, constant repetition of the same, lame propaganda. He still denies that Saddam was a terrorist or that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. :down:

:darwinsm: Silly me! I was hoping against hope that :mock::skeptic: was having an actual coherent thought.

My Bad. :(

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by theo_victis

skeptic.... who cares if you kill people they are just people! I care.

Come on now grow up. It has been natures way far longer than any liberals or Christians idea of morality. Long before the advent of Christianity, most people have always been concerned about UNNECESSARY and UNJUSTIFIED killing of people.

Bush believes that all people should die. I doubt that. He simply doesn't care about those innocent men, women and children who he knew would die as a result of his unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq.

So stop caring so much about other peoples lives because you should worry about yourself. Is that your policy?

If Bush wants to kill everyone dont bother getting all upset... he isnt killing you is he? Quit complaining!! Do you ever complain when you feel others have been unnecessarily and unjustly killed?

I mean come on Bush can kill whoever he wants, what if he likes it? I do not want to live in a world where anyone can kill anyone they like whenever they want to. A vast majority of the world's population agree with me. Why do they agree with me? It's NOT because unjustified killing is a "sin" or the moral principle opposed to unjust killing is some kind of "absolute" God-given principle. Most agree with me because most of us share the same general human genetics, brain, and experience which has taught us to believe that such killing is undesirable. There will always be individuals and groups who think it's ok to kill whoever gets in their way, but they will be subject to the laws of the land established by the majority and based on majority consensus.

The world is all about Bush to Bush and the world is all about you to you and me to me isnt it? Is that your policy? It's not mine.

Shouldnt bush be happy? Killing makes him happy! See above.

Oh wait..... you claim that is wrong? You claim that Bush impeading on other peoples lives is evil and wrong? I don't recall saying what Bush did was "evil." Evil is a mythological concept which I don't accept. However, according to my moral principles, what Bush did was wrong.

But isnt that (according to you since morals arent absolute) relative to ones opinion? Isn't your belief that the Bible is the "Word of God," and your belief that the moral precepts stated in the Bible are absolute, your opinion, which happens to be shared by many others who likewise believe in such fairy tales and superstitions?

Maybe in Bush's opinion morals dont matter and that he (since he is president and all) should kill people if he wants! Bush's moral principles are not mine. He and even a majority might think it was necessary and just to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq. But I don't. Even if Bush was had a legal right (which is debatable) to unnecessarily kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people, this does not make it morally right, according to me and many others.

Why should there be justice done to him if he is guilt of murder as you claim? The imposed legal consequences (justice) of one's illegal behavior is another issue. I don't believe people "deserve" to receive punishment as a result of their illegal or immoral behavior. However, I believe that society is justified in protecting people from harm. Therefore, when one breaks the law and/or perpetrates behavior that causes harm to others, societies have a right to take steps to modify the behavior of the perpetrator. Simply to punish someone because people (even a majority) feel they "deserve" it or because it might make victims feel better is, to me, wrong.

On occasion, certain kinds of punishment may serve as a deterrent. I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent. But impeachment of a President could serve as a deterrent to the unjust actions of future Presidents. In this sense, I believe Bush should receive punitive consequences for his unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

I am sure every living human being knows that murder is wrong (except the clinically insane who DO NOT MAKE UP THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE). It is not an opinion it is a fact. That is why every culture has rules against this. I generally agree. But the reason for this has nothing to do with the Bible or religion.

So you still think morals arent absolute? Correct.

Of course you say! Then why would you get upset if someone came to your town and killed your family, friends, and your dog. Because I love them and I would not like to see them harmed.

Iraq did nothing to harm America and there is no hard evidence they were even close to being an imminent threat. To kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children because Iraq may have posed a potential future threat (assuming the U.S. stopped keeping Saddam in a box and monitoring him 24/7) was immoral.

Why would you seek justice? See above.

Maybe the murderer believed he was doing the right thing! Why would you be mad? If, after later realizing that killing those who were killed was unnecessary and unjustified, the killer admitted that that his actions were wrong, then I would not be so mad. Efforts should be taken to prevent such unnecessary and just killings in the future. One way to do this would be to impeach Bush.

There is no heaven or afterlife you claim, ... Correct.

... there is only one life to live and our happiness, even at the expense of others is ok then, right?? That's not my belief.

A sensible person would realize that morals are instilled values. A sensible person would realize they come only from God. A sensible person would realize there is no rational reason to believe in the existence of God. A sensible person would realized that morals are instilled by our learning history and our shared human experience in the context of our culture.

A sensible person would realize that there is an afterlife ... A sensible person would realize that there is not one shred of empirical evidence for either the existence of the "soul" or the existence of an afterlife.

... and our moral decisions count for something in this life (however, not much, such as salvation). Not in any fairy-tail ultimate/absolutistic supernatural way.

You are not a sensible person if you continue to run circles around this morality issue. You are not a sensible person, as long as you persist in believing in Biblical fairy tales and superstitions. You might be sensible in other aspects of your life, but apparently not when it comes to this issue.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I do not want to live in a world where anyone can kill anyone they like whenever they want to.


Then you should take a stronger stand against Terrorism.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

He also knew that millions of lives would be saved by ending the war. I have no problem with Truman's decision to drop the bomb. The Japs had to be stopped and killing them is better than letting them kill us. I doubt that dropping the bomb saved more lives than were lost because of the bomb.

But did Iraq pose such a grave and imminent threat to America or other countries (while being boxed in and monitored 24/7 by the U.S. and international community) that killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children was necessary in order to prevent them from killing us?

NO!

Bush hardly used the full force of the US military. We have a lot more nukes than Truman had, but we didn't drop a single one in Iraq. You don't recall reading that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was one of the largest mobilizations of military force in U.S. history? Of course I'm not talking about nukes! :doh:

You never seem to remember that Saddam had killed Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi's. You never seem to remember that Saddam's past atrocities did NOT justify the unnecessary slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003.

I guess it was OK for Saddam, after all, they were HIS people. It was not OK for Saddam to do what he did in the late 1980s. It was ALSO not OK for Bush to unnecessarily and immorally invade Iraq, which killed tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

And I'll remind you about the innocent Israeli's who were killed by suicide bombers paid for by Saddam. Those innocent Israelis would have been unjustly killed by those suicide bombers regardless of whether Saddam compensated the bomber's family. I doubt if Saddam's offer to pay money to those families did much to increase the suicide bombings. And I also very seriously doubt that Saddam's payment of money to the families of suicide bombers warranted the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children beginning in March 2003.

Bush gave Saddam a chance to step down from power, Saddam declined. Any loss of life in Iraq can be attributed to Saddam, who was a terrorist. If convicted criminal has been essentially living under house arrest and has been boxed in on all sides by police forces, and under 24/7 monitoring, and in this house were many other innocent people, would it be morally justified for the police to open fire on the house, killing many innocent people as a consequence, simply because the criminal (who was not currently a significant threat) refused to give himself up? NO!

There were other ways of dealing with Saddam, which could have spared the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

If the UN and other European countries had not been illegally profiteering from the 'Oil for Food' program, Saddam would not have felt that he had allies who would protect him via the UN and might have co operated with the US. In March 2003, Saddam HAD been cooperating with UN weapons inspections. There was no clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a WMD threat. There was only hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations. Therefore, regardless of the UN 'Oil for Food' program, there was no moral justification for invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

The UN is as much to blame for the deaths of your supposed thousands as Saddam is. Nonsense!

"Supposed" thousands? A very conservative figure is over 15,000 innocent people killed. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Bush did the right thing by removing Saddam, thank God George Bush is our President! The issue is NOT whether Saddam needed to be removed! The issue is this: considering that there was no clear hard pre-war evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat, was it so urgently necessary to remove Saddam, in March 2003, in such a way that tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children HAD to be killed in a massive bloody invasion and subsequent occupation?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Then you should take a stronger stand against Terrorism. I believe I take a VERY strong stance against terrorism. But my stance does NOT include UNNECESSARILY and IMMORALLY killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children resulting from invasions of countries that are NOT a threat!!

I want to minimize real terrorist threats as much as anyone. But Bush's UNNECESSARY and IMMORAL invasion of Iraq has done JUST THE OPPOSITE!!

[Chileice]

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance. This thread is like the energizer bunny. One good thing about the reelction of Bush is that it gives you four more years to get him impeached, a quest you would have lost if he hadn't of won. But the big question is whether or not you will be able to keep it going after the 2008 elections. I think that should be your goal. Getting an ex-president impeached would be a real coup!!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Chileice

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance. This thread is like the energizer bunny. One good thing about the reelction of Bush is that it gives you four more years to get him impeached, a quest you would have lost if he hadn't of won. But the big question is whether or not you will be able to keep it going after the 2008 elections. I think that should be your goal. Getting an ex-president impeached would be a real coup!!
:darwinsm: YEAH! :mock::skeptic:

[HerodionRomulus]

Meanwhile,
Sudan, with confirmed longterm well established terrorist and al-queda connections
Sudan, which is, according to Powell last September is committing genocide,

Yet we do nothing but wring our hands and whine.

Why didn't we invade months ago when we realized genocide was underway?

Of course, western business interests control Sudanese oil.........

[hypermach]

terrorism is not a threat, btw social security is not in trouble

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Chileice

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance.

Yeah, too bad perseverence isn't the same thing as being correct.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by hypermach

terrorism is not a threat, btw social security is not in trouble

Michael Moore, is that you???

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Chileice

You know, skeptic, I have to give you credit for perseverance.

Originally posted by :BillyBob:


Yeah, too bad perseverence isn't the same thing as being correct.

Satan perseveres even though his end is defeat and death.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Satan perseveres even though his end is defeat and death. Amen, brother!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Satan perseveres even though his end is defeat and death. Spouting more fairy tales and superstitions, I see. :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Spouting more fairy tales and superstitions, I see. :chuckle:
:yawn:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:yawn: Give us ONE rational reason to believe that the supernatural entities, powers and events depicted in the Bible are not fairy tales and superstitions.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Give us ONE rational reason to believe that the supernatural entities, powers and events depicted in the Bible are not fairy tales and superstitions.

There is a God and He has revealed Himself to us in scripture. It is your characterization of same that has no rational basis.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

There is a God and He has revealed Himself to us in scripture. You answer a question about the basis for believing in Biblical fairy tales and superstitions with the SAME fairy tales and superstitions I asked about? :confused:

That's like the following:

Question: Why do you believe that the Bible is the World of God?

Answer: Because the Bible says so!


Can't you do better than that!! :doh:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

You answer a question about the basis for believing in Biblical fairy tales and superstitions with the SAME fairy tales and superstitions I asked about? :confused:

That's like the following:

Question: Why do you believe that the Bible is the World of God?

Answer: Because the Bible says so!


Can't you do better than that!! :doh:
:darwinsm: That wasn't what you asked. You're getting lost in your irrational rant again. :drum:

[Jackielabby]

Well, I believe in all the stories in Mother Goose so they must be true.

[Jackielabby]

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Secretary of State Colin Powell tours tsunami-stricken Banda Aceh and says, "I cannot begin to imagine the horror that went through the families and all of the people who heard this noise coming and then had their lives snuffed out by this wave."

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a resolution that said: "The tsunami disaster constitutes a humanitarian tragedy of incredible proportions. ... My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy."

Last and hardly least, President Bush said: "The devastation in the region defies comprehension. ... Our flags will fly at half-staff to honor the victims of this disaster. We mourn especially the tens of thousands of children who are lost. We think of the tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters. We hold in our prayers all the people whose fate is still unknown."

In the abstract, the outpouring was appropriate. In context, the sympathy was a stench unto itself. Tens of thousands of people die by an act of nature and we say we cannot imagine the horror. We say it defies comprehension. We call it a catastrophe.

In Iraq we kill off perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians with our own hands, and we reject any attempt to comprehend what we have done. Countless Iraqi civilians are homeless. We call it liberation.

Bush quoted all the numbers for the tsunami: 150,000 lives lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia; perhaps 5 million homeless; millions vulnerable to disease. That stands in hypocritical contrast to the refusal to count the Iraqi civilians killed in his invasion over false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the crime-ridden chaos of an occupation that did not plan on an "insurgency."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Iraqi commander Tommy Franks both said, "We don't do body counts." Then, right in our faces, Powell said civilian casualty figures were "relatively low." Central Command spokesman Pete Mitchell hailed the invasion for its "unbelievably low amount of collateral damage and needless civilian death." Paul Bremer, Bush's former civilian reconstruction envoy, said, "We have freed people with one of the great military battles of all time, in a period of three weeks, with almost no collateral damage, very few civilian deaths, and they are now free."

The White House left the counting to journalists, doctors, think tanks and human rights groups. The numbers range from conservative guesses of 3,200 in the first few weeks of the war and occupation estimates ranging from 15,000 to 100,000. No matter if the number was 3,200 or 32,000, this atrocity of silence makes the torture in Abu Ghraib pale in comparison.

No flags have been flown at half-staff for Iraqi civilians. There have been no moments of silence in Congress. There have been no speeches by Bush mourning "the tens of thousands of children who are lost." Americans have not been asked to think of the "tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters."

In a nation that supposedly re-elected Bush on "moral values," there have been no prayers from the White House for "all the people whose fate is still unknown" in Iraq. This was a bipartisan hypocrisy. Even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, fell into the trap of favoritism, fueling the appearance that this war was a religious crusade.

At the beginning of the war she said, "We pray for the swift and successful disarmament of Iraq with the least possible loss of life among our forces and the civilians of Iraq." But then she closed her message with: "May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless the president of the United States. And may God bless America."

Not once did Pelosi or any American politician say in the last two years, "God bless Iraqi civilians" or any variant. Only one time has Bush uttered "God bless the people of Iraq," and that was in announcing Saddam Hussein's capture. Not once has he asked God's blessing for the courageous civilians and the families of Iraq who had no choice but to brave our bombs.

Let us do what we can for the victims of the tsunami. But no matter how much we weep for them, no matter what donations we spare, the offerings will not spare us from history's judgment, if not God's. Lugar said his heart goes out to the victims of the tsunami. No hearts have gone out to Iraqi civilians in this heartless cover-up.

Powell said of the tsunami, "The power of the wave to destroy bridges, to destroy factories, to destroy homes, to destroy crops, to destroy everything in its path is amazing." He said, "I have never seen anything like it in my experience."

Yes, he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.

Derrick Jackson is a columnist for The Boston Globe; jackson@globe.com.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COMMUNIST




Derrick Jackson is a communist for The Boston Globe


:think:

[Jackielabby]

:think:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Well, I believe in all the stories in Mother Goose so they must be true.
For an example, see below.
Posted by Jackielabby
Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

Secretary of State Colin Powell tours tsunami-stricken Banda Aceh and says, "I cannot begin to imagine the horror that went through the families and all of the people who heard this noise coming and then had their lives snuffed out by this wave."

Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a resolution that said: "The tsunami disaster constitutes a humanitarian tragedy of incredible proportions. ... My heart goes out to the victims of this tragedy."

Last and hardly least, President Bush said: "The devastation in the region defies comprehension. ... Our flags will fly at half-staff to honor the victims of this disaster. We mourn especially the tens of thousands of children who are lost. We think of the tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters. We hold in our prayers all the people whose fate is still unknown."

In the abstract, the outpouring was appropriate. In context, the sympathy was a stench unto itself. Tens of thousands of people die by an act of nature and we say we cannot imagine the horror. We say it defies comprehension. We call it a catastrophe.

In Iraq we kill off perhaps tens of thousands of innocent civilians with our own hands, and we reject any attempt to comprehend what we have done. Countless Iraqi civilians are homeless. We call it liberation.

Bush quoted all the numbers for the tsunami: 150,000 lives lost, including 90,000 in Indonesia; perhaps 5 million homeless; millions vulnerable to disease. That stands in hypocritical contrast to the refusal to count the Iraqi civilians killed in his invasion over false claims of weapons of mass destruction and the crime-ridden chaos of an occupation that did not plan on an "insurgency."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Iraqi commander Tommy Franks both said, "We don't do body counts." Then, right in our faces, Powell said civilian casualty figures were "relatively low." Central Command spokesman Pete Mitchell hailed the invasion for its "unbelievably low amount of collateral damage and needless civilian death." Paul Bremer, Bush's former civilian reconstruction envoy, said, "We have freed people with one of the great military battles of all time, in a period of three weeks, with almost no collateral damage, very few civilian deaths, and they are now free."

The White House left the counting to journalists, doctors, think tanks and human rights groups. The numbers range from conservative guesses of 3,200 in the first few weeks of the war and occupation estimates ranging from 15,000 to 100,000. No matter if the number was 3,200 or 32,000, this atrocity of silence makes the torture in Abu Ghraib pale in comparison.

No flags have been flown at half-staff for Iraqi civilians. There have been no moments of silence in Congress. There have been no speeches by Bush mourning "the tens of thousands of children who are lost." Americans have not been asked to think of the "tens of thousands more who will grow up without their parents or their brothers or their sisters."

In a nation that supposedly re-elected Bush on "moral values," there have been no prayers from the White House for "all the people whose fate is still unknown" in Iraq. This was a bipartisan hypocrisy. Even Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, fell into the trap of favoritism, fueling the appearance that this war was a religious crusade.

At the beginning of the war she said, "We pray for the swift and successful disarmament of Iraq with the least possible loss of life among our forces and the civilians of Iraq." But then she closed her message with: "May God bless our courageous forces and their brave families. May God bless the president of the United States. And may God bless America."

Not once did Pelosi or any American politician say in the last two years, "God bless Iraqi civilians" or any variant. Only one time has Bush uttered "God bless the people of Iraq," and that was in announcing Saddam Hussein's capture. Not once has he asked God's blessing for the courageous civilians and the families of Iraq who had no choice but to brave our bombs.

Let us do what we can for the victims of the tsunami. But no matter how much we weep for them, no matter what donations we spare, the offerings will not spare us from history's judgment, if not God's. Lugar said his heart goes out to the victims of the tsunami. No hearts have gone out to Iraqi civilians in this heartless cover-up.

Powell said of the tsunami, "The power of the wave to destroy bridges, to destroy factories, to destroy homes, to destroy crops, to destroy everything in its path is amazing." He said, "I have never seen anything like it in my experience."

Yes, he has. It was in Iraq. The tsunami was us.

Derrick Jackson is a columnist for The Boston Globe; jackson@globe.com. Good post! :thumb:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:Jackieblabby

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims

DERRICK JACKSON
SYNDICATED COMMUNIST

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Good post! :thumb:

:darwinsm:

[Jackielabby]

:rolleyes:

[Delmar]

.

[Skeptic]

Impeachable Offenses (http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/category/impeachable_offenses.html) ... :readthis:

All we need is one.

[BillyBob]

:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Impeachable Offenses (http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/category/impeachable_offenses.html) ... :readthis:

All we need is one.

There's a Dummo nutburger in the House whose been trying to impeach George Bush since January 21, 2001. You ought to join his staff. Applications are available at Al Jazeera. :chuckle:

[aikido7]

Hold onto your porkpies, you sillies. A scandal is GUARANTEED during the next four years.

Today is 19 January, 2005.

Old Smirk and Swagger is not full of God, but of himself.

Iraqi civilians the uncounted victims
Denial is a torrent of water in Frank's brain.
A river runs through it.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

Hold onto your porkpies, you sillies. A scandal is GUARANTEED during the next four years.
:darwinsm: You gonna start one?

Today is 19 January, 2005.
Posted date suggests 20 January, but, hey, who's counting? :darwinsm:

Old Smirk and Swagger is not full of God, but of himself.
:yawn:

Denial is a torrent of water in Frank's brain.
A river runs through it.
:darwinsm: You never fail to amuse. :cloud9:

[On Fire]

aikido7, have you memorized this yet?

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

[Jackielabby]

These photos were taken by US military personnel in Fallujah on
November 19, 2004. They were taken in order to identify the dead, as
well as used to track where the bodies were later buried in Fallujah.<>

All of these photos taken by the military are of men. An interesting
thing, in light of the fact that the Iraqi Red Crescent has announced
that conservatively, 60% of the casualties in Fallujah, which are
expected to be well over 2,000 people, are women, children, elderly and
unarmed civilians.

I warn you in advance that these are extremely graphic images.

Click here
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32>;
to view them.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by JackieBlabby

These photos were taken by US military personnel in Fallujah on
November 19, 2004. They were taken in order to identify the dead, as
well as used to track where the bodies were later buried in Fallujah.<>

All of these photos taken by the military are of men. An interesting
thing, in light of the fact that the Iraqi Red Crescent has announced
that conservatively, 60% of the casualties in Fallujah, which are
expected to be well over 2,000 people, are women, children, elderly and
unarmed civilians.

I warn you in advance that these are extremely graphic images.

Click here
<http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=album32>;
to view them.

Are you suggesting that the United States military deliberately murders women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Are you suggesting that the United States military deliberately murders women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians? Bush and his neocon Pentagon buddies knew that invading Iraq and bombing Fallujah would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. How could they not know? Therefore, since they also knew they had no clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real threat, they unnecessarily and deliberately murdered these people!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

Bush and his neocon Pentagon buddies knew that invading Iraq and bombing Fallujah would result in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. How could they not know? Therefore, since they also knew they had no clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real threat, they unnecessarily and deliberately murdered these people!
:yawn: More commie screed. :sleep:

[Jackielabby]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:yawn: More commie screed. :sleep:
Nazi!

[Jackielabby]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Are you suggesting that the United States military deliberately murders women, children, elderly and unarmed civilians?

Now, didn't this happen in Vietnam, too?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

Nazi!

Another commie screeder heard from. :vomit:

[Jackielabby]

Sieg Heil!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

Now, didn't this happen in Vietnam, too?

If you believe Sy Hersch, it did. He made a somewhat career lying in print.

[Jackielabby]

My Lai?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

Sieg Heil!

Have to do better than that, Adolph. :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:JackieBlabby

My Lai?

My, my! Either a terrific guess or you're trying to go somewhere. Where might that be? :think:

[Skeptic]

My emphasis:

=========================
Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by Knight Ridder
British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy
by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON -- A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls for comment on Thursday.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the memo reported he said.

Straw reportedly proposed that Saddam be given an ultimatum to readmit United Nations weapons inspectors, which could help justify the eventual use of force.

Powell in August 2002 persuaded Bush to make the case against Saddam at the United Nations and to push for renewed weapons inspections.

But there were deep divisions within the White House over that course of action. The British document says that the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush for an explanation of the document's charges, an aide said.

Source (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-01.htm)

[Justin (Wiccan)]

My emphasis:

There is a tremendous difference between seeing a pattern where none is there, and deliberately "crafting" a pattern. Regardless, neither is an actionable offense according to the Constitutional definition of impeachment for a president. Even if the Bush administration had deliberately lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the military action was approved by Congress.

In short, Bush has not committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Which makes this post so much empty rhetoric on your part.

Justin

[On Fire]

There is a tremendous difference between seeing a pattern where none is there, and deliberately "crafting" a pattern. Regardless, neither is an actionable offense according to the Constitutional definition of impeachment for a president. Even if the Bush administration had deliberately lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the military action was approved by Congress.

In short, Bush has not committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Which makes this post so much empty rhetoric on your part.

Justin
Septic is a commie.

[Gerald]

Septic is a commie.And the only good commie is a dead commie.

So get to work, you. :sinapisN:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Septic is a commie.

"Commie" or more properly Communist, is a word that reflects a very specific economic and political philosophy. It is not appropriate as a slur word unless the recipient is an actual Communist--such vague and useless insults undermine your credibility far more than they undermine Skeptic's political views.

Justin

[Gerald]

"Commie" or more properly Communist, is a word that reflects a very specific economic and political philosophy. It is not appropriate as a slur word unless the recipient is an actual Communist--such vague and useless insults undermine your credibility far more than they undermine Skeptic's political views.

Justin:: stage whisper ::

He's only interested in insulting Skeptic. He wouldn't pull him out of a burning building, or even pee on him if he was...(the pun is unavoidable)...on fire.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

:: stage whisper ::

He's only interested in insulting Skeptic.

Well, then, perhaps this is an opportunity for On Fire to either get serious about his arguments, or cease the "vain babblings." If Skeptic plans to keep continuing this pseudo-intellectual dissection of American Law, I plan on giving Skeptic a run for the money, and I don't need two-bit insults cluttering the playing field.

He wouldn't pull him out of a burning building, or even pee on him if he was...(the pun is unavoidable)...on fire.

:chuckle:

Justin

[On Fire]

mangez mes shorts

[Gerald]

mangez mes shorts
Gesundheit.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

mangez mes shorts

The word is "culottes." And the insults are still two-bit.

Love ya. Mean it. :D

Justin

[On Fire]

Fresh out of high class insults. Sorry.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Fresh out of high class insults. Sorry.

Ah, heck. I get days like that, and I hate it when that happens.

[Skeptic]

There is a tremendous difference between seeing a pattern where none is there, and deliberately "crafting" a pattern. Regardless, neither is an actionable offense according to the Constitutional definition of impeachment for a president. Even if the Bush administration had deliberately lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the military action was approved by Congress. Congress acted on intelligence provided to them by close buddies of Bush (i.e. the Pentagon and CIA). The evidence seems to indicate that Bush had a hand in trying to fix the facts (i.e. lie) regarding the alleged Iraqi threat. If Bush and company lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, they essentially lied to Congress. Is it constitutional for the President to lie to Congress?

In short, Bush has not committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Which makes this post so much empty rhetoric on your part.
Treason - the betrayal of a trust.

Lying America into war is not a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? I can't think of too many crimes that are higher than this!! Bush clearly attempted to gain personally from his action of fixing the facts to support his policy. This was obviously part of his re-election strategy. I would say one could strongly argue that fabricating evidence for war for personal/political gain is a treasonous act.

How is lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, a crime worthy of impeachment, while lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not? How many brave U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi men, women and children died as a result of Clinton's lie?

Bush gave a solemn oath to the American people:

====================
United States Constitution

Article 2, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
======================

What does "faithfully" mean?

faithful

1 obsolete : full of faith
2 : steadfast in affection or allegiance : LOYAL
3 : firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : CONSCIENTIOUS
4 : given with strong assurance : BINDING <faithful promise>
5 : true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original <a faithful copy>

Source (http://www.m-w.com/)

Fixing the facts amounts to subverting the Constitutional power of Congress to determine when, why and under what conditions the United States goes to war. If Bush misled or lied to Congress and the American people, especially about the reasons for starting a war that results in the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, along with over 1600 brave American soldiers, this is a violation of the Constitution!

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Congress acted on intelligence provided to them by close buddies of Bush (i.e. the Pentagon and CIA).

First and foremost, the CIA and Pentagon are not "close buddies" of the President, but his employees. They are both under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

The evidence seems to indicate that Bush had a hand in trying to fix the facts (i.e. lie) regarding the alleged Iraqi threat.

The evidence is not conclusive.

Treason - the betrayal of a trust.

Wrong. Treason is very closely defined in American law.
* Levying war against the United States
* Adhering to the enemies of the United States
* Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution.

Lying America into war is not a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

The definition of "High crimes and misdemeanors" is defined solely by Congress. Not by you.

How is lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, a crime worthy of impeachment, while lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not?

Ad hominem tu quoque.

Now, I can go through the rest of your post with a fine toothed comb like this if you like, or we can simply dispense with your argument. Your arguments have no legal leg to stand on.

Justin

[Frank Ernest]

My emphasis:

=========================
Published on Friday, May 6, 2005 by Knight Ridder
British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy
by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
:yawn:

[Skeptic]

First and foremost, the CIA and Pentagon are not "close buddies" of the President, but his employees. They are both under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch. Those who call the shots at the Pentagon and CIA essentially are the Pentagon and CIA.

Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat? Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

The evidence is not conclusive. The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway!

So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

Wrong. Treason is very closely defined in American law.
* Levying war against the United States
* Adhering to the enemies of the United States
* Giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. I did not claim that the definition I used was how "treason" was defined in the Constitution. I simply meant to show that treason can be considered a betrayal of trust.

If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution? There may be no legal precedent for this, but who's to say this situation will not change?

The definition of "High crimes and misdemeanors" is defined solely by Congress. Not by you. So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children? If this is the case, this is a real problem!

Ad hominem tu quoque. I'm asking you a moral question, not a necessarily legal one. Even if it is true that lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not technically an impeachable offense (time will tell?), does it make sense to you personally that lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, is a crime worthy of impeachment, while lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not? Would you like to the latter to become an impeachable offense?

Now, I can go through the rest of your post with a fine toothed comb like this if you like, or we can simply dispense with your argument. Your arguments have no legal leg to stand on. If Bush has not committed an impeachable offense (by fixing the facts and, hence, knowingly starting an unnecessary war) in the eyes of law makers or judges, they should be convinced otherwise. I think efforts should be made to change the official interpretation of the Constitution. The reasons for war should never be fixed to support one's policy decisions. The Constitution lists two reasons for war: (1) if we are invaded, and (2) if there is an imminent threat. There was no pre-war evidence of either. It's too bad that Bush and company didn't adhere to the spirit of the Constitution in this regard. Where does it read that we should start wars to prevent suspected (but not proven) threats from becoming imminent? I hope it never reads that!

If Bush did indeed fix the facts, what do you think should be the consequences for Bush and future Presidents who commit such acts?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Those who call the shots at the Pentagon and CIA essentially are the Pentagon and CIA.

Waitaminit. Skeptic, let's step back and look at something.

If I were to go through all the logic, all the argument, and demonstrate to you that you were wrong ("wrong" as in "erroneous, stating a position contrary to fact" not morally), would it change your views?

Justin

[Skeptic]

Waitaminit. Skeptic, let's step back and look at something.

If I were to go through all the logic, all the argument, and demonstrate to you that you were wrong ("wrong" as in "erroneous, stating a position contrary to fact" not morally), would it change your views? If I agreed with your reasoning and assessment of the facts, perhaps. And if I did the same to you, would you change yours?

But first, I'm curious as to how you would answer some of my questions, especially the ethical questions:

Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat?

Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway! So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

There may be no legal precedent for this, but who's to say this situation will not change?

So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

Even if it is true that lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war is not technically an impeachable offense (time will tell?), does it make sense to you personally that lying under oath about personal conduct in a lawsuit, that has nothing to do with the affairs of government, is a crime more worthy of impeachment than lying to Congress and the American people about the justification for war?

Would you like to the latter to become an impeachable offense?

If Bush did indeed fix the facts, what do you think should be the consequences for Bush and future Presidents who commit such acts?

[Justin (Wiccan)]

If I agreed with your reasoning and assessment of the facts, perhaps. And if I did the same to you, would you change yours?

Of course. Which is awfully easy to say, but I do mean it. ;)

Why did the Pentagon and CIA never provide any clear, hard, empirical evidence that Iraq was a WMD threat?

Probably because it never was. My best surmise is that Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary, took what evidence he had, and ran with it. It turns out that the evidence was wrong--I'll be the first to acknowledge that--and was far thinner than presented.

Why did they claim that the hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions of the alleged threat were verified, when they knew they were not?

Skeptic, do you know how Intelligence works? No, that's not a sarcastic question--I'm quite serious. In short, Intelligence works much like Journalism--and if you have multiple Intel sources who lie, or are mistaken, or are mis-evaluated, then you have "verified Intelligence" that is wrong. However, a full discussion (which this subject badly needs) is beyond the scope of this thread.

The evidence for Iraq's WMD threat was not conclusive either, but that didn't stop Bush for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children anyway!

First and foremost, your assertion that Bush "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children" is rhetoric. Yes, civilian casualties happen in war. Yes, it is a horrid situation when they do. Our soldiers are trained to avoid civilian casualties as much as is possible, but sometimes it is not possible.

Second, I would love to see a realistic comparison of civilian casualties caused by Coalition soldiers vs. civilian casualties caused by the actions of Iraqi forces--either before Sadaam fell, or by the "insurgents."

So, even though the evidence is not conclusive that Bush tried to fix the facts, why not do a bipartisan investigation into this?

That's not my job to decide--that's up to Congress. For my part, while I also deplore the casualties, I feel that Sadaam needed to be removed. I personally feel that he deserves execution for his crimes ... but that will be decided by an Iraqi court.

If a President violates his oath to "faithfully execute the office" by failing to be true to the facts (i.e. fixing the facts presented to Congress and the American people), why isn't this a violation of the Constitution?

The Presidential Oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Notice a reference to lying? Neither do I. Telling the truth is not required in the oath, and frankly I've yet to read of the history of a president who didn't have to lie, at least once, during his term of office.

That may be difficult to accept, but look at it this way: nations do not have ethics--they have interests. There are times when other nations want to do something morally wrong to us, or to an innocent third party.

Did Bush lie? It's quite possible. And it's utterly beside the point.

So, Congress says that lying about personal matter (sex) under oath is a higher crime than lying to Congress and the American people about the alleged facts that led to war and the unnecessary and immoral deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children?

You know as well as I do that the Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with his affair with Lewinsky: it was about reducing the political power of a popular president. That's not an "ethical investigation," that's power politics.

As for Bush--even if he lied, Congress decides cases on an individual basis. There is no rule of "legal precedent" when it comes to Congressional hearings.

I didn't answer all the questions--many of them were based on whether or not Bush lied, and frankly as I said that's not the point. And Skeptic ... I don't mean that to sound derisive to your views. I do take your questions seriously, but the number of questions you asked would need a book to answer fully.

Justin

[zoo22]

Hi Justin, I've been following a lot of your comments in various threads ... I think you've got a lot of good things to say, and appreciate the way you communicate them. Wanted to pipe in here ...

My best surmise is that Bush felt the invasion of Iraq was necessary, took what evidence he had, and ran with it. It turns out that the evidence was wrong--I'll be the first to acknowledge that--and was far thinner than presented.

Heh ... Actually, there were er, a FEW people who acknowledged it BEFORE we went to war. It was investigated and disputed by countless experts. I know you weren't being literal, but I think it's important ... Bush's evidence had already been shown to be wrong before he "ran with it."

Skeptic, do you know how Intelligence works? No, that's not a sarcastic question--I'm quite serious. In short, Intelligence works much like Journalism--and if you have multiple Intel sources who lie, or are mistaken, or are mis-evaluated, then you have "verified Intelligence" that is wrong.

Yes, but 1) this is not simply a case of getting some bad info and making a mistake. This mistake has resulted in thousands upon thousands dead already, with no end in sight. And no WMD's in sight. Who's ultimately reponsible for it? Yes, it very well could have been that Bush was simply given bad info somewhere down the line... The President of the United States could have been given misinformation by HIS EXPERTS that led him to choose to send our troops to war. Bush needs to be held accountable. If in fact, it was a mistake, Bush is ultimately responsible. 2) This was misinformation that was widely and publicly refuted by countless experts in the field. It was actually systematically investigated BEFOREHAND by worldwide teams of experts. I can remember. The conclusion was that Bush's evidence (wherever it came from) was wrong. And THEN he still decided he "run with" his own misevidence.

However, a full discussion (which this subject badly needs) is beyond the scope of this thread.

True... But then again, it might be a little more sedate than this thread... ;)

First and foremost, your assertion that Bush "slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children" is rhetoric. Yes, civilian casualties happen in war. Yes, it is a horrid situation when they do. Our soldiers are trained to avoid civilian casualties as much as is possible, but sometimes it is not possible.

Yes, civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war. This was certainly taken into consderation when war plans were being made. We all knew beforehand that there would be countless civilian deaths. These casualties are not a surprise to anyone. Bush KNEW beforehand there would be civilian casualties. These inevitable deaths warranted examining the evidence that we know was wrong, and that had already been shown to be wrong before he sent our troops to war.

Second, I would love to see a realistic comparison of civilian casualties caused by Coalition soldiers vs. civilian casualties caused by the actions of Iraqi forces--either before Sadaam fell, or by the "insurgents."

I would too. I'm sure there are many, many, many. Bush also knew beforehand that there would be innumerable civilian casualties from Iraqui forces and insurgents. We all knew. These inevitable deaths warranted examining the evidence that we know was wrong, and that had already been shown to be wrong before he sent our troops to war.

For my part, while I also deplore the casualties, I feel that Sadaam needed to be removed. I personally feel that he deserves execution for his crimes ... but that will be decided by an Iraqi court.

I thought and think that Hussein needed to be removed from power, and I had long thought that it was insane that nobody had stepped in. I can not, will not say that the end justifies the means in relation to this war. This war was not necessary. I also belive it's a dangerous thing to imply that the end result makes it okay. It diverts accountability for actions. Plus, while I am not directing this at you, for many people who support this train of thought, it is extremely hypocritical. There are equal reigns of terror going on that people continue to ignore. Bush (yes, I will direct it at him) has used the fact that Hussein's reign is over to his poltical gain, while he ignores equal attrocities. Perhaps I would have supported a war to overthrow Hussein. Perhaps we should be in other wars right now. But that's besides the point. That's something different.

The Presidential Oath is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Notice a reference to lying? Neither do I. Telling the truth is not required in the oath, and frankly I've yet to read of the history of a president who didn't have to lie, at least once, during his term of office.

That may be difficult to accept, but look at it this way: nations do not have ethics--they have interests. There are times when other nations want to do something morally wrong to us, or to an innocent third party.

Did Bush lie? It's quite possible. And it's utterly beside the point.

No, no reference to lying. But that does not mean that it's besides the point. Can you in good concience tell me that it's okay if Bush had ulterior motives for this war that he kept from the American public?

You know as well as I do that the Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with his affair with Lewinsky: it was about reducing the political power of a popular president. That's not an "ethical investigation," that's power politics.

Thanks for that. ... Heh, it's not too often I get to hear it coming from someone on the conservative side of the fence... I'll silently appreciate it for a sec (before the firestorm that's sure to follow this post). Yeah, I think power politics are completely out of control. Warping all of our minds. Left n right.

[BillyBob]

The war in Iraq was not just about WMD, contrary to the constant parroting of the whiney libs.

[Mr. 5020]

The war in Iraq was not just about WMD, contrary to the constant parroting of the whiney libs.
:chuckle:

[HerodionRomulus]

The war in Iraq was not just about WMD, contrary to the constant parroting of the whiney libs.

True.
It was about redeeming Daddy's legacy since Daddy failed to remove Saddam in the first war.
It is about money, power, and OIL OIL OIL.

[BillyBob]

:Commie:

[zoo22]

:Commie:

I'm definitely not communist.

[Frank Ernest]

True.
It was about redeeming Daddy's legacy since Daddy failed to remove Saddam in the first war.
It is about money, power, and OIL OIL OIL.
:darwinsm: Rewind, restart, old lies. :yawn:

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Hi, Zoo,

I tried to answer this earlier today ... and I was in the middle of my response when the power blinked.

Heh ... Actually, there were er, a FEW people who acknowledged it BEFORE we went to war. It was investigated and disputed by countless experts. I know you weren't being literal, but I think it's important ... Bush's evidence had already been shown to be wrong before he "ran with it."

Yet again ... if Bush deliberately lied, that's not the point.

Let's step back to a parallel situation. Starting in 1939, President Roosevelt started building up American military preparedness ... all the while assuring people that he would not be sending their sons to die in a "foreign war." We now know that Roosevelt knew that war was going to be inevitable. He fully intended for America to participate in the war, and he wanted to make sure that we were going to win.

In other words, Roosevelt lied through his teeth. He did so because American sentiment at that time would not tolerate a military buildup. Was he "wrong" for doing so? If you look at it morally, yes. But if you look at it politically, not only was it the best possible course of action, it was sheer brilliance.

Now, let me be quick to state that Bush is no Roosevelt. Times are different, and the man is different, but in one respect there is a strong parallel: both men felt that the conflict they were leading the nation into was vitally necessary for the safety of the nation.

Did Bush deliberately lie? Did he mis-read and "cherry-pick" the Intelligence? I honestly do not know--though it is obvious that what he claimed is not what we found. Yet I choose to believe that Roosevelt lied because he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk, and that the lie was the only way to avert that risk.

If Bush lied, I do not feel it is unreasonable to extend to him the same benefit of the doubt.

Justin

[Jeremiah85]

:darwinsm: Rewind, restart, old lies. :yawn: :BRAVO:

[BillyBob]

I'm definitely not communist.

You've already admited to being a left winger, what's the difference?

[BillyBob]

Besides, that :Commie: was for Herod......

[zoo22]

Yet again ... if Bush deliberately lied, that's not the point.

Let's step back to a parallel situation. Starting in 1939, President Roosevelt started building up American military preparedness ... all the while assuring people that he would not be sending their sons to die in a "foreign war." We now know that Roosevelt knew that war was going to be inevitable. He fully intended for America to participate in the war, and he wanted to make sure that we were going to win.

In other words, Roosevelt lied through his teeth. He did so because American sentiment at that time would not tolerate a military buildup. Was he "wrong" for doing so? If you look at it morally, yes. But if you look at it politically, not only was it the best possible course of action, it was sheer brilliance.

Now, let me be quick to state that Bush is no Roosevelt. Times are different, and the man is different, but in one respect there is a strong parallel: both men felt that the conflict they were leading the nation into was vitally necessary for the safety of the nation.

Did Bush deliberately lie? Did he mis-read and "cherry-pick" the Intelligence? I honestly do not know--though it is obvious that what he claimed is not what we found. Yet I choose to believe that Roosevelt lied because he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk, and that the lie was the only way to avert that risk.

I actually do understand what you're saying (and I think I had strayed from your subject) ... I guess my biggest issue with it hinges on me believing that the war is wrong: The fact that it was based on mistruths only adds to it. And in turn, because I believe that the war is wrong, it gives validity to the mistruths being wrong... I suppose that if I did not believe what I do, I would need to find justification. In my case, each (the war and the lies) only compound one another.

But do you see a line that is not okay to cross in a leader lying to the people? Or do you even think it is okay at all? In the debates, Bush made it very clear that there that there were absolutely no plans for a draft, and that there would not be a draft. For the sake of argument, let's say a draft was initiated, and it turned out that Bush knew full well it would be when he denied it. Would that be okay? If the country's best interest was his intent? For that matter, was it okay for Roosevelt to lie to the American public?

If Bush lied, I do not feel it is unreasonable to extend to him the same benefit of the doubt.

I think the biggest difference here is that with Roosevelt, we are looking at it in retrospect... It's in the past. While we can come to conclusions about it based on what history has revealed to us towards intent, motive, reason, we are powerless to make change to it. Bush's war is going on right now, and his intent, motives, reasons are in question. There has been no evidence showing that the reason we are in this war is because "he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk." That is yet to be determined.

[justchristian]

You've already admited to being a left winger, what's the difference?

Do you really think anyone left is a commie?

[Frank Ernest]

Do you really think anyone left is a commie?
Yes. Most lefties don't know they're :Commie:s. They are knee-jerk reactionaries who follow their masters blindly. They hide behind all kinds of noble rhetoric, claim not to know who Karl Marx is while pushing his ideas with religious zeal.

They support, protect and defend the enemies of the United States while claiming to be "true" patriots.

They support protect and defend the murders of the unborn and the old claiming the higher principle of "quality of life."

They join churches and demand the church bend to and accept their heretical and immoral standards. They support protect and defend every effort to remove religion and God from our social fabric.

They support protect and defend the most vicious of criminals while screaming "civil rights" and "social justice."

They support protect and defend "political correctness" which is nothing more than the trashing of our Constitution and the suppression of our God-given rights.

Just to be "fair", I believe the modern-day leftie is much closer to being a Nazi fascist rather than a :Commie:, but it's close enough.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I actually do understand what you're saying (and I think I had strayed from your subject) ... I guess my biggest issue with it hinges on me believing that the war is wrong: The fact that it was based on mistruths only adds to it.

OK, that may be the crux of understanding. What's wrong about the war? Is it that you are opposed to war in general (an understandable view, and one that I agree with to a certain extent), or do you feel that this war was specifically wrong?

But do you see a line that is not okay to cross in a leader lying to the people? Or do you even think it is okay at all? In the debates, Bush made it very clear that there that there were absolutely no plans for a draft, and that there would not be a draft. For the sake of argument, let's say a draft was initiated, and it turned out that Bush knew full well it would be when he denied it. Would that be okay? If the country's best interest was his intent? For that matter, was it okay for Roosevelt to lie to the American public?

I could wrinte books on the subject of Roosevelt's lying and not completely cover the subject, but here's a start. Was it OK for Roosevelt to lie? No. The core issue here is not if it was OK, but was it necessary to preserve the nation.

As for Bush ... yes, there are lines that should not be crossed, and I will gladly admit that while I earnestly believe that Bush ahs the best interests of America at heart, I am also aware that Hitler had the best interests of Germany at heart--at least, as he understood them.

But you are correct in one other regard: the fact that Roosevelt's lies are in the past gives them a remoteness that Bush's (possible but unproven) lies do not have.

To be honest, these are dillemas that I can solve for myself, but my solutions may not work for you.

Justin




I think the biggest difference here is that with Roosevelt, we are looking at it in retrospect... It's in the past. While we can come to conclusions about it based on what history has revealed to us towards intent, motive, reason, we are powerless to make change to it. Bush's war is going on right now, and his intent, motives, reasons are in question. There has been no evidence showing that the reason we are in this war is because "he honestly and sincerely felt that America was at grave risk." That is yet to be determined.[/QUOTE]

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Yes. Most lefties don't know they're :Commie:s. They are knee-jerk reactionaries who follow their masters blindly. They hide behind all kinds of noble rhetoric, claim not to know who Karl Marx is while pushing his ideas with religious zeal.

They support, protect and defend the enemies of the United States while claiming to be "true" patriots.

They support protect and defend the murders of the unborn and the old claiming the higher principle of "quality of life."

They join churches and demand the church bend to and accept their heretical and immoral standards. They support protect and defend every effort to remove religion and God from our social fabric.

They support protect and defend the most vicious of criminals while screaming "civil rights" and "social justice."

They support protect and defend "political correctness" which is nothing more than the trashing of our Constitution and the suppression of our God-given rights.

Just to be "fair", I believe the modern-day leftie is much closer to being a Nazi fascist rather than a :Commie:, but it's close enough.

Frank, do us all a favor ... drop the "broad brush," please. Such rhetoric as the above will not change the motives of those who are firmly entrenched in their ways, but may push those who are undecided into the opposite political camp.

Justin

[BillyBob]

Frank, do us all a favor ... drop the "broad brush," please.

What Frank wrote is the truth.

Such rhetoric as the above will not change the motives of those who are firmly entrenched in their ways,

Of course not, most commies are gonna stay commies.

but may push those who are undecided into the opposite political camp.

Justin

If people read the truth and make a decision based on it, what's the problem? Personally, I think a lot of lefties try to ignore the reality of liberalism/socialism/communism which is why they like to give a neat sounding name like 'Progressive', it makes them feel better about themselves but there is no point in covering up for them and pretending that the democrat party is anything short of the communist party. If that reality makes some 'undecided idiot' join them, at least he'll finally know what he is.

[Justin (Wiccan)]

What Frank wrote is the truth.

That's the point, BB--it is not the truth. It is nothing more than a slew of useless rhetoric, profane and vain babblings fit only to make a proud man prouder.

Do you want a perfect Biblical parallel to Franks rhetoric?

Luke 18:9-14
(9) And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
(10) Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
(11) The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
(12) I fast twice in the week, I give t