fahrenheit 9/11

[pigsteak]

you can't fool me, Miss Meadows... you are sharp as a whip, and just love the dra ma

[Meadows]

I'm still not versed on politics. I"m learning from the great ones of RRC.com and once I catch up, I'll crack my whip.

[charlie]

Whaaaat?! I'm learning a lot here because I am one of those "other readers who catch nightly soundbites on the news" or whatever you said. Don't leave!

Don't fool yourself, unsubstantiated arguments without sources and facts are not to be trusted. This is a chase your tail insult fest fueled mostly by opinions, not facts.

[rhunt]

Don't fool yourself, unsubstantiated arguments without sources and facts are not to be trusted. This is a chase your tail insult fest fueled mostly by opinions, not facts.

Man so where are the reliable sources at? tv news..no news papers..no internet...never

Where are the "Facts"

[Meadows]

Man so where are the reliable sources at? tv news..no news papers..no internet...never

Where are the "Facts"

Exactly. Media is biased and some journalists concoct their own stories just for a little glory.

There's substance in personal responses/experiences to war, social programs, The Tour de France and I don't think we should disregard them.

[charlie]

Don't fool yourself, unsubstantiated arguments without sources and facts are not to be trusted. This is a chase your tail insult fest fueled mostly by opinions, not facts.

Man so where are the reliable sources at? tv news..no news papers..no internet...never

Where are the "Facts"

Reliability is a relative thing. Rule #1 at my College buds' message board is to go off using BS info and form unsubstantiated opinions, but quote the source. That way when I read something that's either somewhat accurate or completely off base I can check the source and decide for myself. You guys should see some of the threads over there, it hurts my head.

It's all fiction though. Don't trust anything anyone says on the internet, especially me.

[pigsteak]

"[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Let's start with this for FACTS....

[tomdarch]

[snip]my words of advice to all - if you want someone else to part with their little plunderous govt. wealth redistribution program, then be prepared to part with yours (or admit to being a hypocrite). the only proper function of a govt. is to protect your right to your life and once it goes beyond that, it is an agressor.

I'm a hypocrite in a lot of ways, but not this one: raise my taxes. Raise the tax I pay on gas and use it to fund better public transportation. Raise my income taxes and use the money to provide health insurance for children and to improve public education. Raise my taxes more than for the working poor, and raise the taxes on the rich more than on me. Assuming that the tax money is largely used for productive causes like health, infrastructure and education, they will pay off in the long run.

[tomdarch]

Dems are mostly poor people lead by rich people. [snip]

Oh, the irony. That might have been true in the past, but today, the whole approach of today's Republican party is to get lower-income white suburban and rural voters to support them with social issues ("faggots are gonna ruin marriage!") while the core of their political action is to support the wealthiest people and largest corporations in the world. In other words, get poor people to do the bidding of rich people.

Oh, but that isn't what Fox news is telling you. Don't believe me, I'm an 'elite' Democrat. Not a salt-of-the-earth, "real" American like George W. "Oops, my oil company failed, give me more money and you can talk to my dad" Bush or Dick "Viet Nam? I've got 'other priorities' " Cheney.

[tomdarch]

[snip]Secondly, if I were drafted, I would defend my country, IN A HEARTBEAT. I would serve for any commander in chief if called upon. I would have went into Bosnia for Clinton, and into Iraq for Bush. Do I expect others to pay with their blood? I don't know...you tell me...if I recall correctly, over 3,000 Americans already DID pay with their blood on 9/11....jesus people, where does it end?

Americans (and people from other countries) did not die on 9/11/01 because of Iraq. The radically secular Ba'athist regeime there "had no operational relationship" with the religious fanatics who are trying to 'purify' Saudi Arabia. The shame is that their deaths were used as a justification for the invasion of Iraq - a radically separate problem.

And for Rhunt, and all the other readers who refuse to follow politics closely, and decide to listen to sound bites on the nightly news, I offer a wager. $100 to any opne who can prove Bush lied about his belief in WMD's before going into Iraq. This whole "Bush lied about WMD's" is such bullshit. Congress demanded a vote be put before them before we invaded, and guess what people, Dems and Republicans overwhelmingly voted FOR the war. If Bush lied to you, then so did Kerry with his vote in Congress. You can't have it both ways. Either Congress and Bush were pulling the wool over your eyes, and lying to you, or either Congress and Bush were making their judgement call based on the Intel. It is F'in hilarious to me how this is GW Bush problem, when Congress approved the measure of war. Why are we not calling all Congressmen and women liars? Liberals, got an answer?

Remember, it was Cheney, not Kerry, who went to CIA headquarters to chew out intel agents for comming up with "the wrong answer" about Iraq and WMDs. It was Bush who pigeon-holed Clark when he explained that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was administration officials like Paul Wolfowitz, not Democratic congressmen, who were meeting with Iraqi exile liars who were spewing crap about Iraq's WMD capabilities and links to al Qaeda, then spinning it in Intel reports and on FNC.

It was unfortunate and wrong that so many members of Congress went along with the lies and spin. It is right to remove brutal dictators from power*, but it is wrong to elevate favorable rumors ("this guy knows a cousin of an Iraqi general...") over unfavorable solid intel (e.g. Hans Blix being on the ground in Iraq finding nothing). Democrats in Congress did go along with this. The Bush administration actively 'massaged' the Intel process and drove the public 'drumbeat'. Passively going along with crap - bad. Actively lying and distorting - very, very bad.

Asking wether Bush himself delivered the lies is kind of like asking wether Ken Lay knew the exact details of so-and-so holding company. Maybe, maybe not. Regardless, Enron was a huge scam and the administration knew that they were presenting false and unsupported information about Iraq.

When Bush said, in his Constitutionally required State of the Union Address, that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium (the Niger 'yellowcake' claim), did he "believe" he was lying? Is that your test? Isn't the important test wether the he should have known that he was lying based on the fact that it was directly investigated and proven false? It was a lie, wether he believed it or not.

(* and it is tragic that America has destroyed its moral standing in the world - it will be a long time before the international community helps us to remove any more brutal regimes)