Here Today... Gone To Hell!

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago

A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements ? amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts ? was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists ? indeed, even some entire news organizations ? have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

Complicity to commit genocide I call it. Should be jailed for life on grounds of treason.

I agree with you for a change.

Unfortunately this will barely be a blip on peoples radars.   The country is just completely war weary and is now focused on the economy.

while this doesn't shock me, it still is outrageous.  and the most mind blowing part is they are able to get away with it.

I do hope Bush can be sentenced once he is not president anymore, because not only did he lie ( all of europe knew as we knew at the time of his father's first incursion there) to HIS nation, but he is also a criminal of war.

He literally invaded a country and dozens of thousands of people have been raped, injured, massacred.

And the country didn't ask for anything.

And don't give me Sadam bullshit, because a commando of 6 people could have done it discreetly after 1 or 2 years infiltration in the iraki police.

I don't really understand the point of this article.  Yeah, we all know there were no WMDs in Iraq by the time we got in there.  Clearly the information the Bush administration presented was false, in my regards, that we all know about.

However, isn't the real question whether the Bush administration actually knew they were false, and why they made those statements?  I'm just saying, that's a separate argument and only the real way someone can argue whether or not Bush should be impeached, or whatever.

I think the study would actually be more interesting if they included the number of false statements about the Iraq war made by those people who now completely oppose it.  Or, how about the number of statements made by those same people arguing or contradicting the information we now know is false before the war started.  That would actually be interesting and informative...

Well that's quite interesting.

What type of statements would those be? That we should have allowed more time for the inspectors to do their jobs? That Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11? Or that they were not threatening us? Those false statements?  :hihi:

"The first casualty of war is truth"


I think that he will face indictments 5 or 10 years after he leaves office. Though, I doubt it will be for war crimes. The administration is pressing for changes now that will absolve their culpability for crimes committed.


That is two separate issues. The former was a UN action ... fully justified. Once the goals of the action was fulfilled, Operations were suspended, articles were signed, and the fruits of those instruments were enacted.

I don't agree with this Jessica. I was pretty young at the time but it seemed justified to me... and it still seems. 
On the contrary, Bush Jr's offensive appeared to be a total nonsense from the very beginning. To me, it was like he was trying to comfort his  country with a taste for revenge after 09/11.... but it was aimed at the wrong person. He couldn't  get Bin Laden ( !)  so he chose to fight something else. Hussein was a dictator, he had lots of people killed...Yeah, he was some kind of monster. But he hadn't done anything offensive. Many countries are potentially dangerous because they own weapons. And some are not very US friendly. Yet Bush didn't regard them as a threat... and he did all he could to justify himself. The more  your motivations are vague and irrelevant, the more you need to work on convincing other people.

Anybody catch 60 minutes last night? They had the FBI field officer on there that worked Saddam for months while under US custody. Saddam told him that he thought OBL was a fanatic and had nothing to do with him. He also said the UN destroyed most of his weapons in the 90's and what they missed he destroyed. He went on to say that he did not think Bush would invade, but rather use some sort of air campaign instead. He also stated that his bravado was to fend off surrounding countries, in particular Iran.

Just as I've said for years....chumps.

so where in this article does it say that Saddam DID NOT prevent weapons inspectors from going into certain areas of Iraq??  Had he done that, all the false statements Bush supposedly made before the war would not have been enough to get this country behind him to go to war....

you scare the shit out of me......

You're way off on the facts. Saddam was working with Blix, and Bush kicked the inspectors out.

Psychos like you scare the shit out of me.

Clowns scare me  :nervous:

I hate clowns and midgets.

I don't usually reply to this stuff because I don't know where to begin - it's so much to think about!!  But, this didn't surprise me, at all.  And, maybe this sound "simple minded" or like, I didn't get the point, but all I've ever thought is, "Why did we attack Iraq, again?  Weapons of Mass what?  What happened to the OBL thing again?  Where is he now?  Wasn't that what it was about in the first place?  What happened?  Did I miss something?"  And here we are, almost 6 yrs later.......the only thing that ever made even half way sense, to me, was when Hussain was brought down - because he was a scary fucker when I was in high school.  We still haven't found THE one who was supposedly responsible for the biggest attack on our country.  Kind of get the feeling that it no longer matters.  Security was huge, after that, such as, at airports, etc.  We've become way lax again.  Sitting ducks........   

ok - time for another sip of wine.  Aaahh..

I saw it (or most of it).  Where was this guy for the 2004 election??

As bad as Hussein was, he was a secular bulwark against Islamic extremists in the region.

the 60 minutes interview actually supports Bush. it describes how Saddam was not fully cooperating, and was actually TRYING to make everyone believe that he had WMDs.

he also stated he planned to start a WMD program again.

from the AP...

NEW YORK - Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, according to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture.
 
Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS's "60 Minutes" program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions," said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack."

"He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack," Piro said.

The Associated Press spoke to a close aide of Saddam's in August 2003, who said that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.

Saddam publicly denied having unconventional weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented U.N. inspectors from working in the country from 1998 until 2002 and when they finally returned in November 2002, they often complained that Iraq wasn't fully cooperating.

Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, debriefed Saddam after he was found hiding in an underground hideout near his home city north of Baghdad in December 2003, nine months after the U.S. invasion.

Piro said Saddam also said that he wanted to keep up the illusion that he had the program in part because he thought it would deter a likely Iranian invasion.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," Piro told Scott Pelley of "60 Minutes."

Piro added that Saddam had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program at the time, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Piro also mentioned Saddam's revelation during questioning that what pushed him to invade Kuwait in 1990 was a dishonorable swipe at Iraqi women made by the Kuwaiti leader, Sheik Jaber Al Ahmed Al Sabah.

During the buildup to the invasion, Iraq had accused Kuwait of flooding the world market with oil and demanded compensation for oil produced from a disputed area on the border of the two countries.

Piro said that Al Sabah told the foreign minister of Iraq during a discussion aimed at resolving some of those conflicts that "he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait," said Piro.

You are something else, so stubborn, even after all these years of being wrong. 

If Bush has gotten up there and said "Saddam wants to have a WMD again ONE DAY" think we would have gone to war? No way would people have sent their kids off for something that might happen one day.

Saddam didn't expect Bush to invade and wanted his neighboring countries to believe he was armed. Just our Iranian nutjob wants everybody to believe-posturing.

At the end, Saddam was coperating with the UN, and Blix said so. And no matter how much you lie to yourself, it was Bush who sent the UN packing, so he could invade Iraq. You always conveniently ignore that.

No link to AQ, no weapons, no threat to the USA, no participation with 9-11. NOTHING. Now the FBI field agent comes forward with his private talks with Saddam, sealing the truth of the matter and you think it's "helping" Bush. You are truly insane.

You deserve to burn in hell right along Bush and his war pigs for advocating such violence and bloodshed.

Saddam overplayed his hand.  Bush may have been stopped cold in  justifying an invasion if Saddam came clean about not having any WMD's.

the angry liberal is making religious comments and playing God.  :rofl:

saddam never FULLY cooperated. and now we know why.

Maybe murderer Bush should have allowed the UN to do their job instead of being a fucking cowboy and slaughtering 650,000  Iraqis in the process.

You advocate, condone, and justify the lies that resulted in what essentially is mass murder of innocent civilians. I am uncertain what may happen at the end of our life cycle, but I can only hope a person such as yourself gets we he deserves for endorsing human misery on such a grande scale. You may have been too chicken shit (and you are too chicken shit) to pick up a gun and do the deed yourself, but you may as well have.

since you're getting all religous on me, i'll throw it right back at ya...

judge not lest you be judged.  :rofl: :rofl:

I'll judge all I want.

You're a chicken hawk coward who never had the guts to go over and take part in the fiasco you so proudly sponsored. Sitting behind a computer screen laughing, while human beings (Including our soliders) get snuffed out on a daily basis for nothing. What a hero.

then what's it say about you as a person that you give me the time of day?

you would rather argue with someone that you think should "burn in hell" than do something constructive. is there nothing important in your life that arguing with someone you think so lowly of is actually higher on your list of things to do?

you're either a screwed up individual, or have a very sad life.

if i was as religious as you, i'd say some prayers for you.

Do you think we had justification to go into Afghanistan?

I've made my points over the years, and they all turned out to be correct. Yours, on the other hand, have been false, yet here you are still lying about it all. Nothing is worse than somebody who is too much of a coward to back what they support. You never were able to put your money where your mouth was, because you never had the guts to do so.

I am quite content thank you, but I'm not going to read the garbage, and half truths you post here without a response. Truth be told, I find you to be a truly despicable individual.

Is there any war cheerleader here that ever had the balls to go to Iraq?

ANYBODY?

i'm so dispicable you waste hours responding to what i post. again, what does that say about you? why do you care so much about someone you think so lowly of that need to respond.

seriously bro, find a hobby or get a girlfriend or something.



 

not all people are able to go and fight, for a variety of different reasons (health, family committments, etc.). and yes, plenty of people are afraid as well. are you saying that NONE of those people can be supportive of a war? personally, i think it's un-american to think that way.

you also try to label people that supported the invasion and continue to want to see success there as endorsing "human misery." that's obviously a brainless argument on so many levels. i don't think anyone in these threads supports the killing of innocent civilians.



"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace..."

I enlisted in the Marines during the first gulf war, but did not go to Iraq.

Does this make my point of view more or less valid?

Disagreeing with your fascist ideals does not mean I have no life. It means I don't care to surrender this great country to a group of sociopaths who intend to ruin it.

What a paltry assertion: That my stance against your kid killing president's Hitler styled invasion, is an attempt to redefine "success."

Go spin it to somebody else chickenhawk.

that is the biggest/cheapest cop out EVER..so because someone didnt go to Iraq that means that they have no business being FOR the war??? really?? is that what you are going with? thats the best you got??

oh by the way its a VOLUNTEER service..... : ok:

You thinking im a psycho might be the best compliment I have ever received..especially with most of your wacky views.....this is like being knighted

Hate to break it to you, but the majority hold my wacko views, including many republicans, these days.

Guess you were too chicken shit to go also huh?

My point is it's a lot easier to support chaos and destruction, when you get to keep your hands clean at home, and send other kids off to do your dirty work.

^You should change the title of the thread to "Bush Lied Through His Fucking Teeth".

Then no one would know it's just about the war  ;D

Congressman Dennis Kucinich says he will introduce articles of impeachment against President Bush for deceiving the American nation.

The Democrat said Wednesday that he would introduce the articles on January 28, the day US President George W. Bush is scheduled to deliver his State of the Union speech.

"We already know the State of the Union," Kucinich said. "It's a lie!"

"[The] Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," the 61-year-old congressman quoted the Center for Public Integrity's recently released report on Washington lies prior to the Iraq invasion.

"In short, the [US] president and the vice president [Dick Cheney] lied and four-thousand of our soldiers died," Kucinich said during his speech in the United States House of Representatives.

"The president and the vice president lied and a million innocent Iraqis died in a war that has cost us 2 trillion dollars, when people here in the States are losing their jobs, their healthcare, their homes, their dignity," he continued.

"If impeachment is off the table, then the truth is off the table. If the truth is off the table, this House will be living a lie," he exclaimed.

Kucinich's statements wreaked havoc on the House floor; Republicans strongly voiced their objection to his remarks.

Florida's Republican congressman, Cliff Stearns, termed Kucinich's statements a 'clear and egregious violation of House rules'.

"Kucinich used the House floor to launch a personal attack against President Bush and Vice President Cheney and accused them of lying to the American people," Stearns added.

Many Americans remain dissatisfied with the Iraq war, claiming it was launched with no justification other than 'Bushite lies'. The US president and his top echelons invaded Iraq under the false pretext that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

:::yawn:::

The Rule Of Law means nothing to this Administration and apparently to those sitting on the right side of the aisle. I believe eventually Bush et al. will receive indictments. I hope most of them(that Dick Cheney) live long enough to see the day that that happens.

 
if by "too chicken shit to go" you mean I have a really good job, money and really no reason to go to war then yes i was "too chicken shit to go".....anyway i love how tough you talk on the computer...but i would bet you a thousand dollars you would NEVER talk to me like that if we were face to face...you would probably shit your pants ;)

This is so surprising coming from someone like Kucinich  :hihi:

Can I answer that question?  Yes.  It was our duty to take down Al Qaeda and one of its primary allies, the Taliban.  Thanks to our assenine erection for Iraq though, we've taken our eye off the ball.  Bin Laden is alive, the Taliban is making a comeback, and Iraq is still a fucking mess that can't manage itself.  Don't worry though.  Once we install democracy in a land that doesn't want it, I'm sure the Shia majority will provide a great buffer/foe to their Shia neighbors to the east, Iran.   ::)

Does any of that make sense?  Seriously, there are issues on the other side of the aisle I agree with and I state this a lot in The Jungle.  Why is it so hard for folks to admit going into Iraq was a huge mistake?  Also, do you enjoy knowing you were intentionally misled?  You have to know this to be true, correct?  Is it ends justifying the means?  Just curious.  ???

LOL, so you can rah rah rah on the sidelines for somebody else to make those sacrifices for you. Just so we're clear on that.  : ok: Just so it ain't your ass on the line huh?

Here's the best part: You behind the computer telling me how scared I'd be of you in real time.  :rofl: Just the kind of guy I painted you to be in the first place.

so people with crappy jobs, not a lot of money and really no reason to go to war (does anybody have a good reason to go to war?) are the ones who should fighting (dying, getting limbs blown off)?

Shadows 7X is right about Punk. When I met him in NYC, I walked up to him and asked "Are you SLC Punk?" He immediately fell to the floor in the fetal position crying "I was only joking! Dont make me do the bad thing!" Then his wife beat his ass and told him to grow a pair. I believe we are still banned from the Toys R Us due to that display.

LOL...nice one...

hmm..i was just pointing out what a tough guy you are on the computer...im not the one talking tough over here.....but you have a history of talking shit and bringing it to a personal level as if youre the toughest guy on earth....but your a lib...so we know that cant be true... : ok:

Dude, Kooj is the master of the rhetorical device. ::)

 I'm asking why you don't have the balls to go fight in the war you promote. Not taking anything "personal". So far, you haven't been able to produce one solid reason why you are here, and not putting your money where your mouth it. Now THAT is what I expect from a Neo-Con (New Confused.)



Any surprise he missed it?

first...I'm not sure if you are talking about me missing this...i got a kick out of it......as I pointed out with the "nice one" comment....


and so let me get this straight....anyone who didn't go to Iraq has no right to think the war was a good idea?? that is what you are saying isnt it?

well?

Great point. I had a conversation with an administrator at the VA, and she thinks that the returning vets from the war will face some  of the same problems the vets from Vietnam faced. i.e. homelessness, psychological problems.

Looks like you missed that too....

Wonder if the guys like Shadow7X, will help these guys out in their time of need?

He is making some great money, right? Maybe he could lend some assistance to the guys who actually had the balls to go fight?

Maybe he could donate some of his time to these soldiers?

How about any of you Neo Con chest thumpers? Are you willing to donate any time or money to these soldiers returning home?

Can you give them that much at least?

I read the article, and none of the replies...so sorry if this was covered.

Very simply...there are two false statements said repeatedly.  One statement, about WMDs, was a statement that many intelligence agencies around the world agreed with them on.  Hardly a reason for outrage.  The other statement is the troubling one.  If they believed this information based on intelligence agreed upon by many to be true, I'd let it slide.  However, I don't recall hearing that this statement was believed by the rest of the world.  That's the crime here. 

I was one that agreed that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.  Would I have thought that way if I thought there was NO connection between Al Quada and Iraq?  Yes.  Because, to me, going to war was more about the message that was sent by it, and not the reasons behind it.  We are, at our cores, primal beings, period.  That instinct is there in every one of us.  In me, it manifested itself after 9/11.  I just liked the idea, at a primal place inside me, of sending the following message:  fuck with us on our soil and we'll mess you up!  The message that the rest of the world got from our invasion of Iraq was that:

"You better not mess with us or we'll make you pay.  As a metter of fact, you better not even let us THINK you MIGHT be messing with us or we'll make YOU pay."

On some level, that's an important message IMO.

Just read the thread.  Utah, I root for the Patriots (sad day today for me btw).  Should I not support them because I don't play for them?  Same thing here.  You need to not get personal over this shit.  There are always more than one way to look at everyting.  When people disagree with your point of view, its just that...a disagreement.  It's not a personal attack against your beliefs man.

You're rooting for a game where men throw a ball to one another.

The other is rooting for violence, and death on a massive scale, just for starters.

Quite a bit of difference.

Nobody is "taking it personal" here.

At least we're getting closer to the truth now. Here's why people like and still support the Iraq war.

After 9/11 people wanted to see a gold ole American asswhooping. Afghanistan didn't really do it, chasing shadows round mountains and all that - Iraq had a classic villain to hate, and real death and destruction live on TV!! It was like the superbowl and wrestlemania all in one, with the added bonus of knowing that your side will win, and even the casualties on your side weren't that important, not having well paid jobs or anything like that.

That sounds like a perversion of "the ends justify the means".


The problem with that argument is that Iraq never "fucked" with us.

If you are going to reference the previous war as some kind of justification. The First Gulf War could have been prevented if Papa Bush had of sent the proper signals through his ambassador.

While that is no reason for an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, at least part of the blame for the original conflict falls squarely on shoulders of the first Bush administration.

You can always say being against the war is supporting S.Hussein and his folkmurder using that logic :P

It isn't the first time a country has been invaded and a dictator removed, Russia did that in 1945. Now it's been done again.
But war is always a defeat and it's uncertain if all means of diplomacy was tried.

Yeah, all our 'intelligence' agencies believing something that simply wasn't true isn't a reason for outrage at all. Must be a line at the coffee machine over at Langley. But what the hell, let's promote these idiots, give them more money!

Stupidity in government, that should be a crime.


What level is that? We go over and fuck you, and if you got a problem we'll fuck you some more? The administration gives the impression of a spoiled, stupid kid that beats you up because you got a problem with him beating you up.

It's not a Chuck Norris movie.

I am all for helping the troops from this war and all veterans from past wars...Dems love to raise my taxes to pay for crack whore moms and their 6 kids and other useless social programs, how about developing some more programs that make sure these Veterans are taken care of the rest of their lives?? imi all for it..

Utah...you are usually at the very least SEMI-rational in most of your posts, but you are ridiculous in this thread...It is the most bullshit argument in the world that anyone who didn't go serve in Iraq is "chicken shit"...you are saying that anyone who didnt go fight and is for the war is a "neo con chest thumper"...thats fucking bullshit and you know it..you are saying  (even though you wont come right out and admit) that if you didnt go to war you have no right to think that it was a good cause....this is insane

I am just saying the way it is.  Alot of people join the service for money (for college) and for an education....Now I know you libs love to say how wars kill the poor...and you know what you are right....That is the way it is, because MOST people(with the exception of guys like Pat Tillman)  do not leave a comfortable life here in the states to go fight a war....do you want me to lie to you? if anything on this board I am the most outspoken and honest, so I stand by my previous statement of really having no reason to go to war.....if you guys want to get on my case for "cheering on the sidelines" be my guest, its way better than most of you who just waliked out on your team when they were down.....You guys are right, continously tearing down our leader and the reason the troops are fighting in Iraq is really boosting morale for the country....keep it up.. : ok:

So what time or money have you donated to our troops coming home?

What sacrifices have you made for this war?

Anything?

I have repeatedly donated money to Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert the past few years.  It provides money for scholarships for kids of soldiers who die in Iraq. 

so if there was a draft, or mandatory military service, how gung ho would you be for a war in iraq?  Would you think your son/daughter would be risking their life for a good cause?  lets see how honest you are with this question...

The fact that I think Iraq was a worthwhile cause has nothing to do with it being a draft vs. a volunteer service...of course I would go to war if I were drafted, and no son or daughter of mine would be a draft dodger..I would disown them...what am I going to do, hide in Canada?  My last name isn't Clinton....

and for the record...just because I thought Iraq was good idea does not mean that I think it has been handled well at all...

I'm not asking if you would go or not - I'm asking if you'd still be for it as much as you seem to be now - knowing that YOU, with your high paying job and great life, might have to go die with those "poor people" who are the ones who should be fighting (not you of course).

If your life is so awesome, I don't think you'd want to risk it by dying in some shitty desert or having your legs blown off.  Its easy to be for something that you know you'll never have to be a part of or risk anything of substance over.

In other words, how "worthwhile" is the war to you?  And if its not worth you or your kids dying over, why should other Americans be dying for it?  What makes you any different?

first off...i never said I have some super awesome great life, I make a decent buck and am satisfied with where I am at right now, I never said I was some millionaire....

and the fact that I told you I would go and would send my kids in a heartbeat should answer your question about how gung ho I would be for the war...I also dont' appreciate you mixing my words, I never said that "poor people are the ones who should be dying" thats horseshit and you know it.I have 4 family members over there right now(who are not poor) who decided to make a career out of the military about 15 years ago.They could have left the military a few years ago but didn't they enjoy it....so its not like I dont have anyone I care about over there..I agreed with you saying that alot of people dying over there are poor....I never said they deserve it....I said that going to war was an option for alot of them to pay for school...etc....the fact that they are dying is unfortunate.....

I'll break it down for you in simpler terms...I am a fourth generation American....the following is what I believe...America is always right...period.  Even when we are wrong...we are right. I am an arrogant American who will always side with our country because it provides us with the best life in this world....I don't care if we torture terrorist suspects, in fact we should kill them when we are done with them, and that goes for any other enemy we might have....Now is this a very rational view to have? of course not...but who gives a shit...if its us vs. them it should NEVER be us.......so if you would liike to continue to try and "get through" to me.....good luck....

Do you read books?

yes of course...I read a lot of books...intelligence and arrogance are two different things....im intelligent enough to know that my view is very irrational and arrogant enough not to care...

Indeed

That's the point I was making in the bolded text above.  The message was "we don't even need proof, we just need to think you might be involved".  Anyways, I think differently about it now.  At the time, that's a thought I had a time or two.  And while I am not happy about the circumstances involved with why we went, I fully support staying until the job is done.  I think pulling out now would be as cruel to Iraq as going into it in the first place.

Wow, just wow.

thank you : ok:

THIS is why they hate us.  Not for "our freedom"

I think most of it is to get a rise out of us.  Getting through to you was the last thing I was trying to do.  Theres 30% of the US nobody will ever get through to - you're one of them  :peace:

Right, and he'll never understand that.

Shadows, i'm curious, are you going to go ape shit when america is no longer number 1 down the road b/c of the Bush admins total and complete failure to push this country forward (it succeeded tremendously in pushing us backwards)?  the very war you support so much has hastened the decline of america as the worlds super power and greatest nation.

wish i could be there for the melt down  :hihi:

Well with todays technology Someone may very well recorded with their cellphone and post it up on youtube. So, will you might not be there in person you still way see it.

thats a good question...of course I would be pissed wouldn't you?  The fact that you enjoy such an event is beyond me....But you amaze me, you really do.  You honestly think the decline of America is going to be soley on 8 years that 1 man is in office and 1 war?(a war which is FARRRRR from the worst this country has ever seen)  If anything Bush has strengthened our position in the world...and I will tell you why....The reason Saddam Hussein wouldn't open his doors to weapons inspectors even after Bush gave him the deadline before the war started was because he thought BUSH WOULD NEVER DO IT.  Saddam thought that Bush was going to what Clinton did which was an airstrike (bombing a few aspirin factories...priceless : ok:) and Saddam was very confident that he could survive that and that would be it.  It was because Saddam did not respect let alone FEAR us like he should have....well I wonder how that repect and fear thing is coming along for Saddam now.....and his 2 rapist/killer sons.....If Saddam would have opened his doors to weapons inspectors and not broken RESOLUTION AFTER RESOLUTION(you guys seem to forget all of this)  we would not be in this mess we are today...

now back to your "fall of the American Empire" point....

You are right, we are going to fall....its inevitable...its how this world works..Look at the Roman Empire..I envy older people I know who grew up in a much safer and simpler time in this country while  I am also thankful that I am in my late 20's now and had a pretty good run myself...I dont want to see what this country is going to look like in 40 years...I dont.......and you guys have this simplistic point of view that Barack or Hillary are going to be able to fix it all?? and the even simpler point of view that it was George Bush who caused it all???

Our open borders, the decline in family values,abortion being used as a form of birth control, our dependence on an energy that we could have been off of since the Kennedy administration are all factors that will cause our demise.....

but youre right...its all George Bush's fault....if he were a great diplomat like Bill Clinton he really could have moved the country forward...the rest of the world really loved us during his term(as Al Qaeda hit us five times between 1992-2000)..now matter how much you think it works.....kissing the rest of the worlds ass does not make them like us...

I don't know which was bigger, your boogieman or your strawman.

Jeez.  ::)

I know...its tough to come up with something to say when you have been proven wrong....its ok...sit this one out champ..... :)

The energy issue is certainly valid, but what the hell does abortion have to do with America's standing as a superpower? 

It has already happened. The damage that Bush Co. has inficted on the national security of the US will take 50 years to repair ... if it is repairable


Is your assumption Vietnam?  If so, While lies and deception(see a pattern) let to the conflict, it was a treaty obligation that sucked us in.


Once again. It was BUSH that withdrew the inspectors for a justification of his illegal war that he was planning before he even entered the White House


I like how you convieniently left out the strikes on Khwost  that destoyed Al Quaida training camps and nearly got Bin Laden

Rather than illuminating anything, "burning" a strawman merely shows the inadequacies of an argument, but torch away.

This thread rules  : ok:

Now THAT is funny  : ok:   TAP has some of the best posts in the Jungle  :beer:

Shadows, yes, I do think Bush has hastened our decline as the greatest country.  The main reason is other countries have gotten much more powerful while we've been chasing the boogie man in Iraq.  Iran is a bigger threat, China has been able to grow at a rapid rate economically AND militarily.  The EU and India's economy have also grown.

Ours kinda looks like shit right now doesn't it.  Sleeping giants have awoken while we've been dicking off, spending TRILLIONS in a BS war in some shitty desert.  Guess who is going to have to pay for those TRILLIONS of dollars!?!?!

you're in your late 20s?  dude, you got A LOT of life ahead of you.  I hope its as good as it is now 20 years from now.

BUT my family came here legally... : ok:

so TAP answer this for me....you have no problem with our open borders? you think its perfectly fine and SAFE for people to be sneaking into this country when we have no idea what their background is...or if they have a criminal past?  you're all good with that?

its funny how these ant-war people have no problem with the slaughering of thousands of innocent babies...how come that never affects your liberal conscience....Abortion on demand is just pushing us further into degeneracy.....its destroying America

you gave me all the typical liberal talking point answers....nothing of any value or originality.... ::)

abortions been around a LONG time before the US has pal.

are you telling me abortions caused 9-11, the trade deficit and the rise of terrorism?

1.) You've made a pretty big assumption about my abortion stances. 

2.) Abortions have decreased, despite the population increasing, so the correlation is going in the wrong direction.

3.) Despite how anyone might feel about abortion, you still haven't explained how it's connected with with the downfall of American supremacy, with the exception of a vague "pushing us further into degeneracy" statement.  If you think there's a connection, I truly want to know what that connection is.

You're beyond ridiculous, circa 2003.

That gig was up a long time ago.

Nice response ...




























 ... for teaching the fallacies of logical argument. : ok:

How can you make a valid point with somebody who doesn't care if he is wrong?

Even after the fact, knowing 100 percent that he was wrong, he still stands by his mistake as the right choice for America.

Now THAT, is fucked up.

good point, i was just reading about this the other day.   So if abortions are going down, then the economy should start to pick up, the deficit will decrease and terrorists should like us more!

(even I don't need to insert a smiley here)

of course not...but are you telling me that abortion being used as a form of birth control not what it should be used for is a GOOD thing...is that HELPING america in anyway?? how can people who are so concerned with the innocent lives in iraq have no regard whatsoever for the children being innocently slaughtered by parents who couldnt keep it in their pants or were too lazy to buy condoms or birth control pills...I am saying that it is bringing this country further into degeneracy...there are alot of problems in this country and alot of you just overlook them...

Here is a fallacy for you:

How can people so concerned life be pro-capital punishment(you can figure out which one).

I'm glad you asked that...here is the reason why pro-lifers are for capital punishment and not abortion... its because a child is innocent, a convicted killer is not....That killer has given up his right to life by completely showing disregard for anothers......its that simple.....

having said that, I am against the death penalty....but not for the same reason some of you are....I believe the death penalty is TOO SOFT a sentence to give someone.....so someone can kill a bunch of people and they die by lethal injection and just go to sleep peacefully?!?! fuck that....a convicted killer should rot in prison FOR LIFE, and while they are there they should be taken out to clean our streets and also to do any other cheap labor that illegal immigrants end up doing....there is no need to exploit illegal immigrants when we have tons of prisoners with nothing but time on their hands.....

Tell em Steve Dave...


What about those who are on death row and may/are innocent?.

Not according to Gawd.


I can respect that. I will go one further, put some of the fucks in solitary ... fuck a bunch of letting them see daylight.

Collateral Damage!!! ;D

here is one better crazy make then join the military and go over to Iraqi

I'm all for "put your money where your mouth is".

If there was a draft, I wonder how many 30 year olds, and under would be Republican.

I don't think abortion is a good thing.  I'd much prefer that people used some form of contraception or give the child up for adoption.  I'm generally for some limits on the practice, though I think, for the most part, that it's a Constitutional issue, and I don't think we should be voting for someone based on their intent to put Justices on the SC with the intent of overturning decades of established law, with the hope of remaking the Constitution in line with their own personal morality.  I also think there'd be a lot less to gripe about if the GOP would stop their tactics of abstinence only education, which is proven to be ineffective.  Kids are gonna have sex.  Adults are gonna have sex.  Just because someone gets in a fuss about it doesn't make it wrong. 

Of course, this is paralleled in their approach to disease prevention.  If AIDS is such a big deal to Bush, why is he so concerned with promoting abstinence over promoting protection?  Does he really think that one day, all of Africa will suddenly say "you know, he's right...we really shouldn't have sex anymore"?  It's absurd!  It's like attacking a full blown plague with Lysol, because your political base really likes Lysol.  I listened to Romney and McCain today, speaking at C-PAC, and they talked endlessly about freedom and its connections to taxes.  Well, people have had genitalia a lot longer than there have been taxes.  Can someone explain to me why this party is so obsessed with what you do with them?  Can anyone explain why they love the Constitution only so far as it agrees with the Bible?  Why can people not realize that, in a country with freedom of religion, the rule of law and the Constitution allow you to live your life within your own, personal morality, but allow others to live with a different morality, should they choose?       

it is funny that you said that....I actually thought of that a few years ago.....If a prisoner has a long sentence ahead of him/her...say 15-25 years or so....and they go over and fight in the war for 4 years they should then be pardoned for their crime and given their lives back....I think some prisoners, not all, would jump at that opportunity to be done with everything in 4 years as opposed to serving 20 plus....I dont even mean fighting in the war....doing construction or anything else in harms way would be good....

I think conservatives feel that way because this country was built on christian ideas and principals.....so they stick to that hardcore...a perfect example is how poorly Mitt Romney did, when he was by FAR the most conservative candidate running....he lined up with most of the conservatives ideas except for one thing....he was a mormon...and that killed him....if he were a christian he would have wiped the floor with Mccain because Huckabee woudlnt have been taking a good chunk of his votes....

Who told you that? A Christian?

Actually, that is a lie that the religiturds like to propagate. This country was founded on secular ideals. May I suggest The Federalist Papers (http://books.google.com/books?id=WSzKOORzyQ4C&dq=the+federalist+papers&pg=PP1&ots=KZXMPLdD3Y&sig=xR_mf9VkuqNekleIOh2CksPoOq0&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=the+federalist+papers&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2RNFA_enUS251&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail) for a more informed argument.

I can accept the role of some Christian ideas in creating this country, but it's also got roots in the Enlightenment, which was largely anti-religion.  Thus, we struck a balance.  A country with freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  I have no problem with voters voting for those who they feel reflects their values.  That's fine.  My problem is when they want to impose those values on others.  There are two types of values...personal and societal.  I'll go out of my way to respect anyone's personal values, so long as they respect mine.  But I see in a lot of social conservatives a desire to elevate their personal values to the level of societal values.  In some areas, I can understand this (abortion, for example), while in others I think it makes no sense whatsoever (gay marriage/civil unions).  It also concerns me that some so clearly want to mix religion and education, as if they're totally ignorant of the fact that others might have different religious beliefs, and might not appreciate having those of others forced onto them.

If the GOP think that taxes hinder freedom, why can't they see that having someone's religious beliefs forced upon you is a far injustice done unto liberty than taxes could ever be?   

well you asked me a question...or someone asked me a question i think it was someone else..but there is your answer ...that is what conservatives say and believe....i dont know why your jumping down my throat about it....someone asked why conservatives only agree with the constitution when it is in line with the bible...there is your answer...

There you go with the strawman crap again. I was addressing your argument that the country was founded on religious principles.

I'm not trying to "jump down your throat", just calling you out on, what I perceive, to be false, or misleading, statements.

you have to look at the relgion...a true christian is supposed to force their beliefs onto others...thats what the bible tells them to do...to spread the word of god....they don't feel like they are hurting people they feel like they are helping people....when Bush referred to Islam as a good religion a few years ago...the christians were up in arms about it...because to them every other religion is false....thats where it gets a tricky....as a christian you have to force it onto others...otherwise you are not doing Gods work....I know some pretty hardcore christians and that is what the hardcore ones believe....how can you aruge with someone if they dont think what they are doing is hurting anyone?

ok maybe i phrased my answer wrong before.....I was not trying to say the country was founded on christian principles...I was saying that is what THEY(being the conservatives) believe....I was giving an answer to the question...I was not stating my personal opinion on that....can someone explain the strawman reference...i have not heard that anywhere but here....

You can't argue with that, I suppose, though anyone who really believes that is walking a tightrope, as others can claim to do the same to them.  Imagine if the views of other religions were forced on them.  Of course, they'd absolutely shit, and rightfully so.  It's a shame that some can't or won't see or don't care about the hypocrisy of defying the Constitution while simultaneously demanding its protections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

their bible IS their constitution...the constitution is meanlingless to them compared to the bible...thats why they dont care

(http://www.eclectictimes.com/mt-images/misc/straw_man.jpg)

ahhh I see....so pretty much the strawman technique describes everything that Booker Floyd has ever posted on this site.

So what you're saying is it's more important to them to apply their own morality to others, rather than living under a legal system that tries to guarantee fairness and protection to all, regardless of religion?

This position is completely foreign to me, as all the religious people I know (including family) are not at all like that.

I'm not saying all christians...but some of them find this WHOLE WORLD meaningless...nevermind the legal system....as long as the legal system follows what the bible says they are cool with it..im telling you...i have talked with alot of born again christians...it is their religion or NOTHING....

are they catholic or born again christians...because i never used to know this but there is a HUGE difference....

Call me crazy, but that sounds an awful lot like something this guy would believe:

(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:O2UR7B4RT7h6MM:http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/1166234.jpg%3Fv%3D1%26c%3DViewImages%26k%3D2%26d%3D17A4AD9FDB9CF1939057D9939C83F106FB599F3428288FCA5A5397277B4DC33E)

Seriously.  I'm not even slightly kidding.  The idea that someone's religion trumps everyone else's rights...that's truly frightening.

Most of my family is Protestant, and not really evangelical at all.  A couple of Catholics have married in.  One who briefly went off the religious deep end after "seeing the light" during surgery.

i agree with you...but christians arent flying planes into buildings to get their point across....not yet anyway :hihi:

oh ok...im judging my experience off of alot of born again christians...who would fall under the evangelical category I guess....they are a trip.....the catholics I know could care less about the bible...they do what they want all week and then go to church on sundays :)

Well, shit, they've (I suppose "we've" if I count myself) already got a couple of crusades under our belts.  Anyway, when it comes to forcing others into a religion, I'm not sure the methods are really that important.  Seriously, this reminds me of the Inquisition or something. 

Christians are lying about reasons to go to war and killing hundreds of thousands in the process though.

So, based on this, are you then a secular conservative?  Or just a non-evangelical religious conservative? 

I'm an evangelical liberal. His holiness, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster", will smite those fake gods with loads of marinara.

RAmen my brother.

Marinara is sooo Old Testament, with all the smiting.  The New Testament is more live and let live.  Very pesto, if you ask me.

OK...stop.  This is making me hungry. 

I'm pro choice.  Just look at the link between Roe vs. Wade in the 70's and the 15% decline in crime in the mid 90's.  Making abortion legal had a positive affect on th crime rate in this country.  It just took 15-20 years for it to yield results.  However, I'm also 100% for capital punishment.  One has nothing to do with the other.  One group being killed deserves it and the other doesn't.  How can you even compare the two things.

I was using a fallacious argument; as I clearly noted.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

You asked what strawman meant. That's a pretty excellent example.

I don't think this is a nation based solely on Christian principles.  I think it's a national of legal principles, many of which are connected with Christianity at some point.  Of course, you could just as easily argue that this country is founded on the principles of Hammurabi, or of Britain, or of the Enlightenment (as I said). 

Simply put, if the founders of the USA and the authors of it's constitution and declaration of independance were christian, then it is of 100% certainty that the USA was founded on christian beliefs.  100%.  Personal opinions are what drive politics.  Politicians can't keep religion out of politics in 2008, why would that have been any different in the late 1700's?  Now I have no idea what the founders' religions were (if you do, please post), so maybe it doesn't matter.

Article 11 is stating that the USA was not founded on christian beliefs.  Does that make it so?  Absolutely not.  That's just the USA's official position, for very obvious reasons.  How horrible would it be if the USA's official position was that our country's priniples are based on religion?  Man, this Iraq war would be 1 million times worse.

A principle can be found in Christianity without it necessarily being a religious principle, though.  For example, "thou shalt not kill" is found in Judeo-Christian teachings, but I don't know that that makes it a Christian principle. 

Anyway, some founders were Christian, others were famously atheist.   

They weren't.

This country was founded on secular beliefs and the rule of law. That is why there are protections in the Constitution ... to prevent religion from interfering in gov.

That priniciple has nothing to do with religion ... it was around long before all religions. It is an evolutionary trait.

That's kind of my point.  It's found in religious teachings, but it's primary source is not Christianity. 

So...a principle can be found in religion, without being a religious principle. 

No offence but that's a totally ridiculous position even if the founders were all Christian which they weren't. Many of them were deists, several of them spoke and wrote very strongly against Christianity, and even those who were Christian thought it should be separate from law and government.

I won't deny that the majority of Americans were and are Christian, but that's very different from the US being founded/built on Christian principles, beliefs and values or whatever those things even mean. The USA bears virtually no resemblance to any nation described in he bible, or any law/value system from it, nor does it bear much resemblance to any nation which came before with an established Christian religion. The majority of the ten commandments would be totally unconstitutional other than stealing and killing which are quite absurd to claim as Christian principles.

Very convincing statements by crazy and TAP.  Your points are so well taken by me, that I simply offer no reply.

Ironically, its actually what you use - quite often.

haha..looks like I hit a sore spot....I have to disagree with you...if anything I am the most blunt person on this board...i tell you exactly what I think and I don't play semantics or word games so I can cover my ass later if I am wrong..because I believe in my opinion...im not scared to share it......i don't know why you are so scared to actually share your opinion....you will never actually say something without leaving a little bit of wiggle room so you can back out of it at a later date...I also know im not the first person to tell you that...