Tired of W. Bush, vol. 2

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by max, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    It's Veterans Day. . . and THERE HE GOES AGAIN!. . . it's the president AGAIN making partisan attacks. So much for reverence for veterans and their contribution. So much for presidential leadership. For George, it's all one big ongoing political battle, everything, and if you disagree with him, he'll try to stick you. I'm tired of the partisanship, and want a president who leads the nation, not just his handful of friends and fellow partisans. A very different man from his estimable father. (Hey, now let me be rhetorical: are we better off today than we were four years ago?)
     
    #1
  2. simi

    simi Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Laurentia
    If by "we" you mean my family and I . . . well, yeah, we are better off now than four years ago.
     
    #2
  3. tonyjh63

    tonyjh63 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    166
    Bush is again making partisan attacks? You've GOT to be kidding me! The commie-pinko-leftist democRATS haven't ever stopped attacking W since he was elected five years ago, except for one brief period following 9/11. And you're accusing him of partisan attacks?!?! Give me a break!
    To answer your rhetorical question, YES, we are better off today than we were four years ago!
     
    #3
  4. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Tony stick it... Now, George is getting nervous and when most monkey kids get nervous, they play the name game. Think rationally, your presidency SUCKS, the colition of the willing is falling to pieces, your vp's aids are getting busted, What do you do? Play the name game.... Think like the GOP's IQ...
     
    #4
  5. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    P.S. I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT... (im an indy technially)
     
    #5
  6. tonyjh63

    tonyjh63 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    166
    Yeah right, you idiot!! Arkansas hillbilly moron!
     
    #6
  7. Docalex007

    Docalex007 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,660
    Location:
    London/Berlin

    WOW, your sentence consists of 43% insults....thats quite high. Maybe you should learn more positive, constructive conciseness when making reply comments.
     
    #7
  8. atatu

    atatu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,328
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Well, at least some Dems won in Virginia and New Jersey. Maybe there are more commie pinko leftists that we thought....
     
    #8
  9. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Tony, I am sorry for you if that is the best you can give out. By the way, I AM FROM HARTFORD!!! Also, I am too liberal to become known as an Arkansas Democrat. Now, progresss is being made which is great for the Democrats and potentially upsetting for the Republican'ts. Maybe the world is going towards prosperity and peace and not war and ignorance.
     
    #9
  10. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi Tony - Unfortunately, partisan attacks are part of the game in Washington, both sides participate.

    Point: If you look back at recent history, and follow the money trail as a sort of no BS indicator of what who is using what power, and for what purpose, the facts are very revealing.

    Fact: The 8 year investigation into the Reagan Administration's Iran Contra affair had a total price tag of 47 million dollars. Long story short...the funding of anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua led to the worst scandal of the administration. The secret and rogue operation, under the direction of the National Security Council's Oliver North, used the proceeds from weapon sales to Iran to fund the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua -- despite a congressional ban on such funding.

    Fact: President Bush intially fought the formation of the 9-11 commissions investigation, but reversed course and endorsed it. The intial budget? 3 Million. Commision chairman Thomas Keane asked for an additional 11 mil, just to keep baying the light bills on the thing, and the request was quietly brushed aside. Under significant pressure, in April 03 Bush changed course again, and approved the funding of an additional 9 million for the ongoing investigation into the tragedy in which roughly 3 thousand people died.

    Fact: Independent counsel probes reagarding the Clinton's invlovement with whitewater (in which he LOST 60,00 dollars in a real estate deal) and the Monica Lewinsky affair, had a total price tag of $80 Million dollars.

    Punchline: A Starr spokesman said in response to the report: "The monumental effort required to conduct the investigation of Monica Lewinsky and others required an unusual commitment of resources."

    80 Million for Monica and Whitewater. 12 Million for the 9-11 commission. Add in the fact that this is a President who lied us into war, lied us into HUGE tax cuts for the wealthiest 1-5% of Americans, and has implemented policies turning the largest budget surplus in American history into the nations largest defecit. And I'd have to say that Democrats have good reason to majorly P...ssd off. The Republican Congress brought this nation to a grinding halt because they could not fathom the notion that a President could lie about something. Me and my good freinds google, and the whitehouse speech archives can find 10 Bush lies in one afternoon. Where is the conservative outrage now? This is what Ds are p..ssed about. And I don't blame em.

    Point #2 There is no shortage of NON "commie pinko lefty democrats" speaking out against Bush policy. A short list would include...

    Pope John Paul II
    General Anthony Zinni, Former CENTCOM Commader for the entire Middle east.
    General Mc Peak, Former Air Force Chief of Staff, campainged for Bush 1 and Bob Dole.
    General Shinseki
    Former Army Secretary, Thomas White
    General Joseph P. Hoar, Former CENTCOM commander of U.S. forces under Bush 1
    Admiral William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan.
    General William Y. Smith, deputy commander in chief, U.S. European Command, 1981-83.

    Link 01 http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/reagan.years/whitehouse/iran.html
    Link 02 http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/20/independent.probe/
    Link 03 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
    Link 04 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030403-9.html
    Link 05 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/01/counsel.probe.costs/
    Link 06 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm
    Link 07 http://www.asianamerican.net/bios/General_Shinseki.html
    Link 08 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
    Link 09 http://www.ndu.edu/CAPSTONE/index.cfm?secID=326&pageID=113&type=section
    Link 10 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/dems.radio/
    Link 11 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm
    Link 12 http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/0/65AB0DA17487377285256A40007188D3?
    Link 13 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1912641
    Link 14 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml
    Link 15 http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/charts_surplusdeficitoutlook.html

    Best regards Tony, and have a great weekend.
    -Jack
     
    #10
  11. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    Chicago Jack, that's great stuff. I really wonder HOW we're in this big partisanship, tit-for-tat, you vs. me business. And HOW do we get out of this partisanship rut? Is the problem just that moderates of both parties have no power anymore?
     
    #11
  12. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hey max , Thats a great question, but getting rid of partisan attackery is way down on my list of things that ought to change. I'd like to see single issue bills, campaign finance reform, a voter verifying electronic voting system, an end to the re-districting shenaingans employed to keep folk in power who have no bidness being there. But mostly, Congress needs to do its job. This whole thing is a system of checks and balances, and right now the moderarte Rs in congress are just towing the party line, and Ds with balls enough to speak up are in short supply, or are simply not being heard. We have gone from a Congress who sponsors an 80 million dollar Clinton witch hunt, to a Congress that stands idle regarding a pres who has lied us into an un needed war, lied about his tax plan, and lied about Social Security and Medicade, Medicare costs as well.

    I posted on political boards for a long time. Finally got tired of the endless insults and whatnot. I'm sort of retired from that game, but can't stop myself when the topic shows up on my door step in far less combative locations.

    Take care, and best regards to you.
    -Jack
     
    #12
  13. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    I'll tell you why, the party of the progressives with real ideas (Republicans) gets attacked by the party of the incompetent and no ideas (Democrats). The Dems have no ideas or solutions for the future so they attack the republicans with lies. What do the Dems stand for and what is their roadmap and agenda for the future of the U.S.? Bet no one can lay it out here.
     
    #13
  14. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi Andfor

    Before you wander into this conversation, obviously itching for a fight, you might want bring something into the ring with you. Those items would be called facts. It's also common practice when calling something a fact, to bring supportive links and references with those facts. I have supplied 15 links supporting my previous statements. You have provided none. It's fine for you to declare Ds are such and such.. and Rs are so and so. If you are saying that's your opinion, then knock yourself out. It's a free country. If you are saying that this is the truth, you got some splaining to do.

    You've asked a very big question. One that will require considerable documentation if I am to present the answer in the manner I like to present such things. Bring me some facts to support your stated viewpoint, and I might consider honoring your challenge. While I am awaiting your reply, I can however, very easily tell you what I stand for.

    1. I stand for clean air to breath, clean water to drink, and safe food to eat.

    2. I stand for the idea that the earth is our treasure to care for, not a resource to exploit for profit.

    3. I insist that as long as there is welfare for corporations there shall be welfare for people.

    4. I insist that we always care for the least among us.

    5. I insist we stop regulating the bedroom, and start regulating the boardroom.

    6. I stand for preservation of overtime pay, a 40 hour work week, safe working conditions, the right to unionize, and the promises of Social Security.

    7. I disagree with the notion that the road to salvation for the masses lies in granting more power and profit to the already powerful and wealthy.

    8. I stand for the idea that a nation works best when government acts as an effective counter balance to the excesses of corporate greed, malfeasance and cronyism.

    9. I celebrate ethnic, social, and religious diversity.

    10. I stand for the notion that if one lie is enough to topple a President, that same principal should apply to all presidents.

    11. I stand for reducing the national debt over tax cuts to the wealthy.

    12. I stand for war when only when the is no other solution, a clear exit strategy, and using appropriate troop strength to the task required.

    Link 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party

    Best regards
    -Jack
     
    #14
  15. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Jack, we gonna get along :).

    WHY I, DANIEL **********, Am TIRED OF W-

    1) FALSE ADVERTISING-
    If a company incorrectly and purposly advertises, they are fined, etc. WHY NOT THE WHITE HOUSE??? They lead us into war by W's own volition, the tax cut dookie, medicare... Let me restate- Their agenda is false, just like their morals.

    2) TRIGGER HAPPY
    Don't you think that it is the american dream to go to WALMART and buy a m-16, take that gun and shoot your ex-inlaws? Yes, I am exagerating a bit but why take away our protection from eachother?

    3) CIVIL WRONGS-
    Let me think of a way to say this with out being totally unbearable. Oh, okay... MY COUSIN can't get married because of his orientation? I want to see W and cronies go to HRC HQ and explain face to face, NO SPIN, why the GBLT population should be shunned for their beliefs and explain why they can't get married w/out Rove... By the time this happens, Rove will hopefully be in a holding pin in Cuba and pigs will be flying first class in AF1.

    4) ENVIORNOT-
    SUV's are awsome. All that HP that could take you up Pikes Peak, go fording across the Mississippi, Ram down those pesky dems in their Priuses, Oh wait, that will never happen. Why the surburban mother, who is spending ten hours a day butting that beast in to the garage, gas is being wasted and as a part of a younger generation, I DON'T WANT TO RUN OUT OF GAS BY THE TIME I AM 30!!! I hate SUV's for that reason.
    We the people, drive from home to the tennis courts, to school back home. A total distance of 11 miles, we have burned a gallon of gas. GO GET AN EFFICENT CAR just like the republican't get themselves an efficent smearing machine.
     
    #15
  16. tonyjh63

    tonyjh63 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    166
    This is what I'm talking about with you morons. "Bush lied us into war." WTF? Where do you get that? Just about EVERY intelligence agency around believed that Iraq had WMDs, including but not limited to, the British, French, German, Russian, Libyan, the U.N., etc. Did Bush lie to them too? Exactly HOW did Bush trick all those nations into believing that Iraq had WMDs? The main disagreement among some of the nations was not whether Iraq had those weapons, but rather, what to do about it. In '98, clinton, gore, albright, kerry, kennedy, and so many other democRATS said that Iraq had WMDs, and had to be attacked, which we did. (Of course, the investigation into the Lewinsky affair was in full bloom, but I'm SURE that had NOTHING to do with the need to attack Iraq) Did Texas Governor Bush trick the clinton administration into attacking Iraq then? And don't give me this line that clinton never sent troops to die in Iraq - that's not the point. The point is that the entire clinton administration believed and said that Iraq had WMDs. The difference is that Bush, in the post-9/11 world that we find ourselves in, decided not to take the chance that Iraq really didn't have any WMDs.
    Btw, you do know that the BIPARTISAN Senate commision looking into Joe Wilson's allegations that Iraq had not tried to buy "yellowcake" (uranium ore) from Niger concluded that Wilson was WRONG, and that Iraq had indeed tried to buy yellowcake from Niger? A conclusion that British intelligence sticks to. Did Bush manipulate the democRAT Senators into lying for him too? Not to mention the British? Now, assuming that Iraq did try to buy yellowcake from Niger, what do you suppose he was going to do with it?
    See, when you bed-wetting, pinko-commie leftists start your arguments with "Bush lied us into war," you lose any credibility. You may disagree with his/our views about taxation, the environment, gun control, abortion, the death penalty, and that's fine. We may be able to discuss that with some civility. But when you start out calling Bush a liar, a murderer, etc., then the discussion will immediately degrade into name-calling. Sorry, but I take it personally when you attack my President on a personal level. Remember, this thread was started when some whiner complained about Bush being "partisan" and attacking the democRATS. I say it's about time! Y'all have been calling Bush all sorts of vile names since he was elected, with only a few weeks respite immediately following 9/11. For years, I've been hoping he'd start attacking back, and he's finally done so after years of abuse.
    And for the record, I still believe that Iraq did have WMDs. I just think they were moved out of country, probably to Syria. But, even if history ultimately proves that hypothesis to be wrong, that doesn't make Bush a liar. Mistaken, but not a liar. If I say that Dallas is going to win this Monday night against Philadelphia, but then Dallas loses, does that make me a liar, or was I simply wrong? Kerry read the exact same intelligence reports Bush did, and he voted to go to war. Did he lie to us too?
    So, if y'all can learn to keep the personal attacks (and by that I mean personal attacks against my President as well) out of political discussions, and just talk about the issues (abortion, gun control,etc.), we can discuss this with civility. If not, well, I can get as ugly as anyone.
     
    #16
  17. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    POINT: I concede to the notion there was faulty intelligence. Yes, there are things we all thought were true but turned out to be false from the benefit of hindsight. There is also a mountain of evidence that 5 senior members of the Bush Administration, made hundreds of public statements that were intentionally misleading, at the time they were being made. The misleading statements can be grouped into 4 categories.
    A - Iraq posed an urgent threat.
    B - Exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear activities.
    C - Overstated Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities.
    D - Misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.

    ...........................
    Exhibit #1
    During an interview with Rocky Mountain News in January of 2004, Dick Cheney was asked “what is your best source for an Iraq to Al-Qaeda connection?” Cheney's responded with a claim based on a magazine article printed in The Weekly Standard. The article was based on leaked and unevaluated intelligence. Cheney’s “best source” was immeadiatley discredited by The Department of Defense. Cheney did manage to identify the name of the report accurately though, which was also was condemned by the Pentagon because it leaked classified information.

    Department of Defense Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections
    IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    November 15, 2003
    No. 851-03

    News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate...The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency.  The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community.  The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question.  The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions. Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

    Punchline When Dick Cheney was asked for his BEST source, HIS BEST SOURCE for an Iraq to AQ connection, that connection was immeadiatly discredited by the Department of Defense, who appear none to keen with Cheney leaking classified information in the first place (falsely)
    ............................
    Exhibit #2
    “The Kay report states Saddam Hussein's regime had a clandestine network of biological laboratories, a live strain of deadly agent botulinum.”
    - George W. Bush, 10/03/02

    The Kay Report says no such thing.

    “We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort.” - Bush Admin Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/02
    ..............................
    Exhibit #3
    United States House Of Representatives
    Committee On Government Reform
    Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, March 16, 2004

    The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials. This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire database is accessible to members of Congress and the public.

    Number of Misleading Statements: The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were simply false.

    Timing of the Statements: The statements began at least a year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, when Vice President Cheney stated on March 17, 2002: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.” The Administration’s misleading statements continued through January 22, 2004, when Vice President Cheney insisted: “there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government.” Most of the misleading statements about Iraq — 161 statements — were made prior to the start of the war. But 76 misleading statements were made by the five Administration officials after the start of the war to justify the decision to go to war.

    Topics of the Statements: The 237 misleading statements can be divided into four categories. The five officials made 11 statements that claimed that Iraq posed an urgent threat; 81 statements that exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear activities; 84 statements that overstated Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities; and 61 statements that misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda.

    -Excerpts from the first two pages, United States House Of Representatives, Iraq on the Record.pdf
    .................................
    Exhibit #4
    GEORGE W. BUSH: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
    -George W. Bush, [88]

    In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. [84] Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances.
    -Iraq On the record page 20

    Shortly after the trailers were found, the CIA and DIA issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. [86] A former senior intelligence official reported that "only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion." Despite these doubts within the intelligence community, the five officials repeatedly misled Congress and the public about the trailers by asserting without qualification that they were proof of Iraq's biological weapons program.
    -Iraq On the record, page 20

    [88] White House Interview of the President by TVP, Poland 5/29/03

    [86] Iraqi Trailers Said to Make Hydrogen, Not Biological Arms, New York Times Aug. 9, 2003.

    [84] Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants 5/28/03

    United States House Of Representatives
    Committee On Government Reform
    Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, March 16, 2004
    Iraq on the Record.pdf
    ..............................

    Link 16 http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html
    The Kay Report at CIA.gov

    Link 17 http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html
    Department of Defense Website

    Link 18 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-2.html
    Whitehouse Website Archives

    Link 19 http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf
    US House of Representatives - Iraq on the Record.pdf

    Link 20 www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/paper_w.pdf
    CIA downloadable pdf report on Biological Weapons Production Plants

    I have many many more items to submit supporting my claim that George Bush is a serial misinformer, and lied us into war. I am willing to share the other references with you if you wish, I realize it is improper etiqutte to post them all here. Have not even touched on the Downing street memo yet, but it's way past my bedtime, I'm turning in for the night. Been nice chatting with you Tony, maybe we can resume sometime later.

    Best regards,
    -Jack
     
    #17
  18. Yours!05

    Yours!05 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,355
    Location:
    Australia
    Very impressive & interesting Jack, but I'll keep out of US politics here I think...
     
    #18
  19. mark1

    mark1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    517

    Wow, you seem to agree with your boy Chicago Jack yet your method of posting is entirely different. You seem to have read his post yet misunderstood the most basic part, ie presenting facts instead of heavily exaggerated reactionary statements as shown specifically in sections 2 and 4. I will tell you what i stand for, as Chicago Jack did.

    I stand for the idea that it is neither my place to tell anyone else what to believe, ie buy a prius over a "gas guzzling suv", nor is it anyone elses place to tell me what to believe. Such as you for example.

    If you want to make changes and convince people to change, I would suggest taking a more fact based approach rather than throwing out tired old cliches and topics like fuel efficient cars. Its very easy to attack people for having a large car that is convinient for them and their families to own. They made the money to buy the car, isnt it only right that they should be the ones who choose what kind of car to buy? This isnt the USSR you know? Its funny to me to see people taking themselves so seriously nowadays. Some of life is intended to be fun and enjoyable you know? If i make enough money and i want to buy an suv with my hard earned cash then i have certainly earned the right to do so, just like you have the right to buy a prius with your same hard earned cash. I believe that being a good person is not defined by your religious or political orientation or even what type of vehicle you drive, but by having respect for yourself as well as others around you. However, it is not my place to tell you what to believe, though you may learn something new from my ideas similar to how i may learn something new from yours, just sharing my humble opinions on the topic...
     
    #19
  20. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    "Party of the Incompetent"? I think you're referring to the people in power, who, in 5 years, have shown themselves to be the most incompetent administration of the 20th and, so far, 21st centuries. They have done absolutely NOTHING right or well, other than get themselves elected and put money into the pockets of their "base". If you have children, they and your grandchildren will pay dearly for the stupidity of the American people in letting this corrupt vermin in the back door. I can't believe people still support these idiots.
     
    #20
  21. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Mark,

    I am not basing my post off Jack, which, is an enormous task to follow. Now, that is a teaser of what I believe and may not be the point of Jack. I am expressing my ideals and will stick by them. The quality of the post above that was quoted by you was more of a 'teaser' where I just typed a wee bit in because of sheer boredom. Have a good day,


    Daniel
    P.S. Jack, great posts.
     
    #21
  22. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Phil,
    He is a member of both, THE COLITION OF THE WILLING (IRAQ BS) and THE ARMY OF COMPASSION (Katrina aid). Just look at the names, they have to mean good :). Also, the reason he believes in such ignorance and false hope is his lack of intellect.
     
    #22
  23. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Incompetent may have been the wrong word. Both parties have shown a lack of leadership and good decision making in many areas.

    As for you, well I never directly insulted you as you have attempted to do to me.

    Jack, you are very well versed in the world of U.S. democratic politics. I have neither the time or energy to really put my dog into this fight. I respect your views however onesided they may be. Again, without my spending much energy to reply I hope you'll respect mine.
     
    #23
  24. FedererUberAlles

    FedererUberAlles Professional

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,420
    Hahahha, you think democrats act like communists? hahhaha

    Americans really need to take a reality check. This place is a ****ing mess.
     
    #24
  25. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi Andfor, Tony

    Andfor - I absolutely respect your views. And tony's view as well. And believe it or not, I actually can put myself in your shoes, and tony's shoes and understand. Bush was not only elected once (under more than a little controvery) but twice. Now you've got another three years of listening to the left do nothing but compalin about him. The Ds are sick of Bush, and the Rs are sick of the Ds complaining about him. Both sides have and endless supply of reasons to feel what they feel.

    I have enourmous room for somebody stating unsupported personal opinion. As long as they state it as such. But the moment somebody (not mentioning you specifically) gets into the business of declaring that they have the truth in a bottle, and I just don't understand what the real truth is, thats when I come loaded for bear with cold hard facts, and endless supply of credible sources to support those facts. I really have no intention of being a thread bully, it's just that political debate is just one arena where everyone is skeptical, and should be skeptical, that's what my lengthy, deliberate posts are about. Anywhoo, see you round the ranch andfor, no hard feelings here. I hope I have not caused any on your end. Best regards and take care.

    Tonyjh63 - Regarding the "you morons" thing, I know from doing this sort of thing for a while, and through many extended family conflicts regarding politics, that nobody is going to be converted here. Nobody is going to switch sides here. Bush's approval rating is now down in the 30's somewhere, and if he's still your guy, then he's always gonna be your guy. The best possible outcome I've ever experienced from political debate is that you understand my world, and I understand yours. I've gotten there with somebody from enemy camp before and its really golden. I think that's something than CAN be achieved here. It's fine to declare that whoever voted for Bush is a moron, or whoever voted for Kerry is a moron. But guess what, Joke is on you. You just created a little fanatsy world where you are surrounded by morons. That's just p...ssin in your own punchbowl. The quality of your own life is diminished by that invented viewpoint. I'm not preaching from the soapbox on this, that's a hard lesson I had to learn for myself.

    PS. I'm off the board for a while everybody, my wife is giving me that look.
    -Jack
     
    #25
  26. andfor

    andfor Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Jack

    No hard feelings. I quite appreciate and enjoy your civil and well thought response. Not sure about the last part of your last paragraph. But that's OK. If only you lived on my side of the ranch and could see the local and state politics we have to endure. I'd say more but am to close work and politically to get into it. It's off topic from national politics and GW anyway.

    I also would never be the first to say that one side has the "truth in a bottle". They (both U.S. political parties) all have their own lies. What ever the lies are either side chooses to debate, listing them in a factual based manner and backing them up by quoted and credible sources is something I have no time or energy for. We could go back and forth doing so adnausium (sp?). It's been done here to often before.

    Foremost on this topic I am an American, second most I support our president, third most I am conservative. I know many here have a problem with some or all of those. But that's me and I won't change. I respect the other side but only have a problem with either side when they get going with personal attacks (not sighting any here). In general both sides do it. I just lean to the conservative side. Oh well, call me mislead or whatever, I don't care. Overall I HATE POLITCS and can't believe I waste time like this discussing. I to would not attempt to convert others politically. It usually leads to hard feelings of which I have none here for you or anyone else.

    The coolest thing about this board is that we can sit here with folks from across the U.S. and world and talk tennis. Oh yea, tennis! It's 72 degrees and sunny here. I gotta go get ready to play.

    Later
     
    #26
  27. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    And For- I see that some of my comments in post #25 should have been more clearly directed towards tonys comments here, I've edited my #25 to more clearly illustrate that.

    Have fun playing tennis today,
    Jack
     
    #27
  28. arky-tennis

    arky-tennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    521
    Andfor- Sorry for being critical of you. Sorry again, just trying to make a point and didn't try to mean offence.

    Cheers,

    Daniel
     
    #28
  29. bluegrasser

    bluegrasser Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,340
    The middle class is becoming a disappearing act, three Big factors come to mind: 1) High real estate costs ( housing ) 2) High medical costs 3) Taxes, Taxes, taxes, and maybe an honorable mention " Fuel costs"

    I think greed is partially responsible, in that profits ( oil companies ) are not shared with the consumers, but we're socked instead while these CEO's give themselves an outrageous salary and bonuses etc, also so much buying and selling of real estate, people just don't stay very long in a residence + all the schemes ( get rich quick ). Then you look at high medical costs, shoot, 25% of my wife's paycheck, why ? high malpractice insurance rates-- driven up by lawsuit-happy culture?
    i think the answer is a third party-- but a better representative than someone like Jessie, The Body, Ventura whose politics were epitomized by self-interest.
     
    #29
  30. max

    max Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,682
    This has been interesting stuff from both sides, but again, why all the raw, hard emotion? Why the sheer anger? I mean, we're all in this together as Americans, and I'm not about to hate someone because he's a Democrat or a Republican. I'm really just tired of this Politics of Anger and Hate and Loud Noise. What ever happened to mutually productive, constructive compromise? Is our ship really sinking so fast that everyone's got to knock everyone else aside? Just what exactly do we agree on anymore?
     
    #30
  31. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    To be able to call someone a liar, don't you have to show both that what they said was false and that the speaker knew that it was false when he said it?

    Pretty much every politicians speech I've ever heard has some kind of exaggeration or overstatement. It's the nature of the beast. They present one side of an argument, and leave the presentation of the other side of the argument to their opponents. But in the case of Iraq, the other side were not putting the other side of the argument, since all the Democrats with access to the intellegence were saying the same thing as Bush.

    So I'm not very interested in hundreds of statements that might be considered misleading. I'm interested to know if there is one statement made by Bush which was a lie.

    Which of these hundreds of statements can you show to be a lie?
     
    #31
  32. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi Deluxe

    I think if you read (carefully) the 1st 3 paragraphs from exhibit #3 in my post 17, the Iraq on the record report is very clear about the exact nature, timing and category of the misleads. 237 misleads is a large number, a number which I think has been broken into categories as well as possible. The entire 36 page report is down loadable in the links I have provided. Exhibit #2 is very straight forward, Bush says the Kay report contains evidence that it does not contain. There are speech writers for these things you know. And there is a process for fact checking the speeches. If this whopper is not clear evidence, it at least shows complete disregard for the truth. Beyond what I have already posted, I have many instances which I feel clearly fits your definintion mentioned here. They have to do with speeches regarding the Tax Cuts of 200-2001, Bush statements regarding medicare costs, and statements regarding Social Security Privatization. While I have these items handy, It takes a while to update my links, as things tend to move around since I last retired from political posting. Can have those out to you soon. In the meantime, consider the following documented fact, and ask yourself, how this situation might have occured.

    Fact: In 2003, as much as 70% of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 tragedy.

    Reference 21
    “The comments from President Bush - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.”
    -BBC News, September 18, 2003
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

    Reference 22
    “White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that in no way did Vice President Dick Cheney suggest in interviews over the weekend that there was evidence of Saddam's participation in the attacks. Bush never came to that conclusion either, the spokesman said. McClellan could offer no clear explanation as to why recent public opinion polls indicate that 70 percent of Americans think there is a tie between Iraq and the attacks.
    - Fox News, September 17 2003
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

    Reference 23
    Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
    - CBS News, September 18, 2003
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

    Reference 24
    “The Princeton Survey Research Associates polled more than 1,200 Americans on behalf of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain. They asked a very simple question: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?" Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi. Another 6 percent believe that one of the hijackers was a citizen of that most notorious node in the axis of evil. That leaves 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer.
    -Salon.com February 6th, 2003
    http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index.html

    Reference 25
    Question 18: Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?
    Results:
    9/18/03 47% of registered voters polled, responded Yes
    1/29/04 49% of registered voters polled responded Yes
    Note: Trends before 9/2-3/04 are based on Total Adults.
    - Newsweek, Princeton Survey Research Associates International
    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...w/story/10-02-2004/0002263797&EDATE=Oct+2,+20

    Reference 26
    “WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.”
    - USA Today / Associated Press, September 6, 2003
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

    Reference 27
    “Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this. Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll.”
    - Washington Post, Sept 6, 2003
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5&notFound=true

    -Jack
     
    #32
  33. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    Perhaps you misread my question. I asked for one example of a lie. Of the 237 statements you reference, according to you, only ten are false. But making a statement that is false does not make one a liar. You also have to show that the speaker knew that the statement was false.

    Please list one statement that was false, and then show that President Bush knew the statement to be false when he made it.

    If you can't do that, you should really stop saying that President Bush "lied us into war".

    OK. Tell me which page to look on where they show that President Bush knew that a statement he made was false before he made it.

    You can't call "exhibit #2" a lie then.

    <stuff not about the war snipped>
     
    #33
  34. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi deluxe -

    The Special Investigations Division compiled a database of statements about Iraq made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. All of the statements in the database were drawn from speeches, press conferences and briefings, interviews, written statements, and testimony by the five officials. This Iraq on the Record database contains statements made by the five officials that were misleading at the time they were made. The database does not include statements that appear in hindsight to be erroneous but were accurate reflections of the views of intelligence officials at the time they were made. The entire database is accessible to members of Congress and the public.

    If that is not clear enough for you, I dont know what would be clear enough. If my 26 separate refernces are not enough to convince you, guess what. That is not my mission. My mission is to assert what I believe to be truthful, suppport that belief with as many references as I can. If I am not living up to your standards here, I offer my apologies. I will not stop saying that Bush lied us into war, because I believe that to be historical fact.

    Can you answer my question found at the bottom of post #32?

    Best regards-
    Jack
     
    #34
  35. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260

    Exhibit 5

    "The budget I submitted earlier this year commits an additional $400 billion over 10 years to implement this vision of a stronger Medicare system. This is enough to meet our commitments to the seniors today and to future generations of Americans." - George W. Bush

    -- President Bush Meets with Florida Seniors to Discuss Medicare
    Remarks by the President in Meeting with Seniors on Medicare
    Engelwood Neighborhood Center Orlando, Florida, November 13, 2003

    Reference 28
    "The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan...When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that...Bush administration officials insisted they acted legally in ordering the nation's top Medicare cost analyst to keep from lawmakers his estimate that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit might cost more than $100 billion [than what the White House promised]."
    - Knight Ridder, 3/11/04 and 4/2/04

    Reference 29
    Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, one of the 13 Republicans, said she "was shocked" when she learned of the higher estimate. "I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered (voting for the bill) because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line," Myrick said. Five months before the November House vote, the government's chief Medicare actuary had estimated that a similar plan the Senate was considering would cost $551 billion over 10 years. Two months after Congress approved the new benefit, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten disclosed that he expected it to cost $534 billion. "

    Reference 30
    By ROBERT PEAR (NYT) 813 words
    Late Edition - Final , Section 1 , Page 29 , Column 5
    "Over strenuous objections from the Bush administration, Congress is moving to increase protections for federal employees who expose fraud, waste and wrongdoing inside the ... Lawmakers of both parties say the measures are needed to prevent retaliation against such whistleblowers, who reveal threats to public health, safety and" ...continued

    Link 29 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031113-8.html
    Link 30 http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_S._Foster
    Link 31 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6339-2004Mar18
    Link 32 http://www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Politics/4-04-02breaklaw.htm
    Link 33 http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/03/12/rtr1297339.html

    Just wondering, What would you call this?

    A - An honest mistake
    B - A mislead
    C - A deliberate mislead
    D - A Lie

    -Jack
     
    #35
  36. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I'm beginning see why you're having difficulty understanding the difference between truth and error. Let's examine your "fact". To prove your "fact", you give seven references with 6 links to news articles from different news organisations.

    Error 1: Look at the dates of the news articles you posted for the articles that mention the 70% figure:
    September 17, 2003 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html)
    Sept. 18, 2003 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml)
    9/6/2003 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)

    So the opinion poll that mentions the 70% figure is well before the 2004 election.

    Error 2: The 70% opinion poll does not mention registered voters, just adults.

    Error 3: The one article that you posted that was contemporary with the 2004 election has a very different result from the August 2003 Washington Post poll of only 1003 adults that gave the 70% number you quoted.

    In that one article (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=617800&TICK=NEWS&STORY=/www/story/10-02-2004/0002263797&EDATE=Oct+2,+20%E2%80%9D ) that is contemporary with the 2004 election, they quote these numbers:

    "18. Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?

    BASED ON REGISTERED VOTERS

    Yes: 36
    No: 51
    DK: 13"

    So the real number you are looking for is 36%, not 70% if you are attempting to reference the 2004 election.

    <references snipped>

    Now, it is obvious that your "fact" is simply unsupported by your references. In fact, your own references show your "fact" to be false. Does that mean that I can call you a liar?

    No.

    I could only call you a liar if I could show that you knew your "fact" to be false when you posted your message. It's pretty clear that you hadn't done the research yourself, or even checked your own references, since you hadn't even bothered to renumber the links to start from 1.

    I would like to suggest that you extend to your President the courtesy of stopping this "lied us into war" rubbish until you can show him to have lied about the war.
     
    #36
  37. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    Oh, I can agree with that...both parties have shown NO leadership, and the Dems don't necessarily have better solutions. I'm an independent, and I don't support either party-they both suck. Only...the rush to attack a soverign nation and fabricate premises for doing so (WMD, terrorism, Iraqi "Freedom"), the cutting of taxes for the wealthiest income brackets (and cutting of social programs to make up for the deficit), the "Outing" of a CIA agent to settle a political vendetta, the poor management of the war and the disrespect paid to the generals who should have been running the war in the first place, the embracing of such paranoid fantasies as the "Patriot Act", incompetent management of Hurricane Katrina, etc., etc., etc., are not acts that would have happened in a Democratic or else a strong and honest Republican administration. Bush is controlled by Rove and Cheney and everyone else is a "Yes" man-or, in Republican circles, it's called "loyalty". They have done absolutely nothing right...and yet, the American people gave them another four years...simply amazing. I'm proud to be an American, always, but embarrassed by my "fellow countrymen". If the latest poll, wheree 57% of the 1,000 people polled thought that Bush was dishonest-is ANY indication of reality, then it seems that a few of the brain dead zombies who supported this crimminal for the last 6 years, are finally coming to life again. Thank God, if it's true.
     
    #37
  38. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    I'm not familiar with the case.

    Nothing you've posted indicates that your President knew that the statement was false when he made it. For you to call it a lie would be totally inappropriate.

    When you're talking about these very large numbers over a decade, a difference of 25% in the cost can easily be a difference in opinion over things like whether the cost of drugs will go up by 3.7% per year, or 3.8% a year.

    I expect what happened was that one set of actuaries used a different set of assumptions than another set of actuaries, and there were ridiculous actuarial arguments about which set of assumptions to make, and the administration chose the assumptions that would be best for them politically.

    President Bush did not do these calculations himself.

    We'll only know whether or not the cost estimate was wrong in 10 years time. I don't think any of your answers would apply. I suspect the 400bn figure is a correct number based on reasonable, optimistic actuarial assumptions.
     
    #38
  39. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    I have some quotes that came from the same source. This explains why I have one more quote than sources.

    Two and a half months is well before? I think you are stretching things a bit.

    Yes, that is an error. I stand corrected. Adults is not the same thing as registered voters.

    The poll you mention is from 2003, you get diff numbers in the 2004 polls which I have also listed.

    Yes. my statement should have been "adults" not "registered voters"
    I see your point, and I stand humbly corrected. You have every right to call me a liar if you wish to do so.

    These particular items appear in one or two boards around the internet (that I know of) in roughly the same order. It's possible somebody has copied me, but I can go to these boards and bump em up to the top to prove I am the original poster. I actually went out of my way in this instance to keep the numbers consistent within this thread. Had the feeling I might be here for a while. The notion that my credibility is ruined because I don't start each link with 1 is a little silly.

    Deluxe - I'm Still waiting for a response to my question at the bottom of post 32

    Take care
    -Jack
     
    #39
  40. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613

    To mislead is not to lie. And this SID thing uses a ridiculous definition of mislead.

    Easy. One example of a lie about the war.

    A "historical fact" that you have no evidence for.
    If you don't have standards that prevent you calling someone, especially your President, a liar without having any evidence for it, then I pity you.

    Already done.
     
    #40
  41. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    No, look at the dates again. The 70% number is from 2003. One year, two and a half months.
     
    #41
  42. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    You quoted the result of the 2003 poll as if it had been done at the 2004 Presidential election. The actual poll result at the 2004 election was 36%, not 70%.
     
    #42
  43. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    You call people liars without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was false at the time they said it.

    I have higher standards.
     
    #43
  44. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi deluxe

    So.. the fact that the top expert in the field, the Bush administrations own expert analyst was told he would be fired if he revelaved his estimates key lawmakers is of no importance to you. Because...The President did not prepare the estimates himself. Therefore the President did not lie when he said that it would cost far less. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

    -Jack
     
    #44
  45. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    What? When did you ever ask whether it would be right to threaten to fire the guy? What has that got to do with whether President Bush "lied us into war"?

    Sigh.

    It was an argument over actuarial assumptions. Very, very, boring. And since you made me look it up, the date of Bush's $400bn speech was Nov. 13 2003 according to your link.

    Now go to http://www.hillnews.com/news/032404/foster.aspx :

    "Meanwhile, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson said this week that he does not believe the White House interfered, and that he didn’t see Foster’s score of the drug bill until Dec. 24, 2003."
     
    #45
  46. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Its clearly noted in the original post, that this was from 2003. All this is stuff you are kicking around is about me saying "voting public" rather than "American public" ? or do you have something else to add?

    -Jack
     
    #46
  47. deluxe

    deluxe Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    613
    The 70% figure is from 2003, and you falsely attribute the result to the time of the 2004 elections, even though your own references show that at the time of the 2004 elections, only 36% of registered voters believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 tragedy.
     
    #47
  48. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Fair 'nuff deluxe, I will oblige your concern. Post 32 will be edited to more clearly state the time frame of the events. I will change the phrase from “voting public” to “american public”.

    Fact: In 2003, as much as 70% of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved with the 9/11 tragedy.

    Reference 21
    “The comments from President Bush - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.”
    -BBC News, September 18, 2003
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

    Reference 22
    “White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that in no way did Vice President Dick Cheney suggest in interviews over the weekend that there was evidence of Saddam's participation in the attacks. Bush never came to that conclusion either, the spokesman said. McClellan could offer no clear explanation as to why recent public opinion polls indicate that 70 percent of Americans think there is a tie between Iraq and the attacks.
    - Fox News, September 17 2003
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97527,00.html

    Reference 23
    Yet, a new poll found that nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved. Rumsfeld said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."
    - CBS News, September 18, 2003
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

    Reference 24
    “The Princeton Survey Research Associates polled more than 1,200 Americans on behalf of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain. They asked a very simple question: "To the best of your knowledge, how many of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens?" Of those surveyed, only 17 percent knew the correct answer: that none of the hijackers were Iraqi. Forty-four percent of Americans believe that most or some of the hijackers were Iraqi. Another 6 percent believe that one of the hijackers was a citizen of that most notorious node in the axis of evil. That leaves 33 percent who did not know enough to offer an answer.
    -Salon.com February 6th, 2003
    http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/02/06/iraq_poll/index.html

    Reference 25
    Question 18: Do you think Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was DIRECTLY involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, or not?
    Results:
    9/18/03 47% of registered voters polled, responded Yes
    1/29/04 49% of registered voters polled responded Yes
    Note: Trends before 9/2-3/04 are based on Total Adults.
    - Newsweek, Princeton Survey Research Associates International
    http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...w/story/10-02-2004/0002263797&EDATE=Oct+2,+20

    Reference 26
    “WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.”
    - USA Today / Associated Press, September 6, 2003
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

    Reference 27
    “Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this. Sixty-nine percent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to the latest Washington Post poll.”
    - Washington Post, Sept 6, 2003
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...node=&contentId=A32862-2003Sep5&notFound=true

    -Jack
     
    #48
  49. mark1

    mark1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2005
    Messages:
    517
    not to get involved in this two person thread here but i am a bit curious about this...

    “Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this."

    How does this show that Bush mislead the American public intentionally about who was involved in the 9/11 attacks? It even states that the Bush administration stated that they didnt have any evidence of this being the case?????? The only thing it tells me is that the majority of the American public do not watch the news...

    no malice intended, just a bit confused...:confused:
     
    #49
  50. ChicagoJack

    ChicagoJack Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,260
    Hi mark, feel free to jump in. To make a long story short, Deluxe has asked me to provide one single item of evidence documenting A Bush Lie, beyond the items I had already posted here.

    My reply was yes, I have many items that will qualify for that debate, but I will need some time to re-check my old links. In the meantime, I posed the question you just asked, and deluxe took exception to some of the statements that went along with that question. How did it happen that so many Americans were confused? I knew it was all smoke and mirrors, as I said earlier, we were shouting it from every window and roof top.

    I have my own ideas but I'm going to cede the floor for at least a little while to let some other folks participate if they wish.

    -Jack
     
    #50

Share This Page