Jauronimo Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Well, it depends upon what your definition of 'their goal' is. They don't DESIRE the outcome of their policies to be screwing the economic pooch; unfortunately, the enactment of their policies have effectively screwed the economic pooch. So, if you are looking at results as 'their goal' then you are correct, they don't want to tank the economy (any worse than it already is). But if you are looking at the implementation of policies that they favor and the (apparently unintended) consequences of those polices, then we're getting to a point where there's some truth to what Herman is saying. Which of the 17 reasons given for going to war in Iraq were the false ones? (Sorry, it's hard to keep up sometimes.) Or were you referring to the military actions in Libya and Yemen or the one in sub-Sahara Africa we just joined? (Sorry, just kidding w/ that last Q. I know you didn't mean any of those. ) Here comes Bush lied about WMDs in 3...2....1... Even though Madeline Albright, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Gore, Daschle, etc. were all on the record about Iraq's weapons program and the threat it posed, going back to the mid 90s, it was Bush who lied. Even though the director of the CIA essentially staked his reputation on WMDs in Iraq, Bush with his psychic powers knew for a fact that there weren't any weapons and perpetuated the lie. This is the part where the original argument falls apart and we get "Ok, Ok, maybe he didn't lie but, but, but he exaggerated the intelligence, made us scared and pushed war on an unwilling populace." Never mind that action in Iraq had overwhelming support in Congress and the Senate, as well as among the general public, this was an illegal war. Who cares if Bush's comments about WMDs in Iraq mirror what his Democratic contemporaries were saying for years, he exaggerated the claims. Then we get the last stand of the Bush lied faction, yellow cake uranium. An after thought, mentioned in a speech only once I believe, which became so crucial for desperate Libs trying to prove that Bush lied/exaggerated/scared me. I don't know why so many people have an issue distinguishing between bad intelligence and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. If Bush lied, so did Clinton, Clinton, Albright, Burger, Kerry, Daschle, Levin, Gore, Graham, T. Kennedy, Pelosi and a host of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Then we get the last stand of the Bush lied faction, yellow cake uranium. An after thought, mentioned in a speech only once I believe, which became so crucial for desperate Libs trying to prove that Bush lied/exaggerated/scared me. Iraq did have yellow cake, by the way. Tons of it. Eleven tons, I believe. It was a B word getting it out of the country after the invasion, from what I understand. That's a far cry from a "nucyooler" program, though. Really...I never got the whole "false pretenses" argument, when "bad pretenses" works well enough on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Even though Madeline Albright, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Gore, Daschle, etc. were all on the record about Iraq's weapons program and the threat it posed, going back to the mid 90s, it was Bush who lied. I've repeatedly posted a video of Hillary Clinton explaining to Code Pink about how she has seen the proof of WMDs. But no. Bush lied. It has such a catchy liberal phrase, how could it be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I've repeatedly posted a video of Hillary Clinton explaining to Code Pink about how she has seen the proof of WMDs. But no. Bush lied. It has such a catchy liberal phrase, how could it be wrong? It's catchier when you make it rhyme. Bush lied, people died. See, now that's catchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Curveball My lIbn al-Shaykh al-Libiink torture to get the answers you want Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Curveball My lIbn al-Shaykh al-Libiink torture to get the answers you want Nice links. How do they explain B. Clinton's, H. Clinton's, Kerry's, Gore's, Daschle's, Burger's, Albright's, GW Bush's, and many other politicians public statements about Iraq's weapons programs well before 1999, when this Curveball entered the mix? Insinuating that this Curveball was the sole impetus for action in Iraq, which that ridiculous Wiki article certainly does, is a total fallacy. Edited October 19, 2011 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Democrats.com 'The aggressive progressives' hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 It's catchier when you make it rhyme. Bush lied, people died. See, now that's catchy. Wow. You're right. Not to mention, it sticks to the standard liberal mantra requirement of two syllables or less, which is probably why we don't hear "Hillary lied, people died." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Nice links. How do they explain B. Clinton's, H. Clinton's, Kerry's, Gore's, Daschle's, Burger's, Albright's, GW Bush's, and many other politicians public statements about Iraq's weapons programs well before 1999, when this Curveball entered the mix? Insinuating that this Curveball was the sole impetus for action in Iraq, which that ridiculous Wiki article certainly does, is a total fallacy. Maybe Tom will educate you on the modified version of the Great game we have been playing since WW2- control of Central Asia through the Middle East to Northern Africa- it's why nothing much changes in foreign policy no matter who's in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Curveball My lIbn al-Shaykh al-Libiink torture to get the answers you want Fascinating. So they managed to conduct super-secret torture, ordered at the executive level, to generate false information that they then fed to multiple different intelligence agencies. And then proceded to not use that information as a pretext for the invasion (because, if you'll recall, the administration never took the position that Iraq was linked to 9/11, merely that they were a threat to the US.) Really, if they're going to go to all that trouble, wouldn't it be easier to just make **** up and actually claim it's true, rather than go through the whole "torture someone for a false confession, then don't use it" thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Maybe Tom will educate you on the modified version of the Great game we have been playing since WW2- control of Central Asia through the Middle East to Northern Africa- it's why nothing much changes in foreign policy no matter who's in office. So you concede that if Bush was guilty of lying about Iraq that the Dems listed above are equally as guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 So you concede that if Bush was guilty of lying about Iraq that the Dems listed above are equally as guilty? In his mind, they're all lizard people run by the Illuminati and Freemasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 In his mind, they're all lizard people run by the Illuminati and Freemasons. Icke speaks the truth. Open your double set of eyelids...I mean eyes, and take a look around. Of course the lizard people and Jews run the world in a fashion that suits no particular purpose or end, for some reason. Sadly, for some people judeo-lizard illuminati is easier to accept than the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 So you concede that if Bush was guilty of lying about Iraq that the Dems listed above are equally as guilty? Don't try to pin lyrbob down or get him to answer a difficult question. You're wasting your time. He'll just run and hide if he can't come up with a smarmy retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Don't try to pin lyrbob down or get him to answer a difficult question. You're wasting your time. He'll just run and hide if he can't come up with a smarmy retort. You make him sound like me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You make him sound like me... Naw, you don't run and hide and can usually come up with a smarmy retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Naw, you don't run and hide and can usually come up with a smarmy retort. And definitely don't provide nearly as many Youtube videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Fascinating. So they managed to conduct super-secret torture, ordered at the executive level, to generate false information that they then fed to multiple different intelligence agencies. And then proceded to not use that information as a pretext for the invasion (because, if you'll recall, the administration never took the position that Iraq was linked to 9/11, merely that they were a threat to the US.) Really, if they're going to go to all that trouble, wouldn't it be easier to just make **** up and actually claim it's true, rather than go through the whole "torture someone for a false confession, then don't use it" thing? I don't know, why did the Spanish inquisitors do it? probably because they enjoy torturing people and it gives them plausible deniability when the **** hits the fan,- the Iraq al-Qaida connection was not used as an official pretext to go to war but somehow about 70% of Americans believed there was a connection which contributed to support for the war and as late as 2006 50% of Americans still believed it. I'm always surprised they just didn't plant WMD but **** like that gets complicated and there are a lot of sharp people out there who are still fundamentally honest, lots of sociopaths at top, not so much at the working level. WMD were a good guess, we knew they had a nuclear weapons program at one time and hell we helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988. Iraq was getting help for it's chemical and biological weapons programs from the U.S., Germany, Britain, France and Russia right up to the First Gulf war, who would've thunk that tricky bastard Saddam would actually really comply with demands to get rid of his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, kinda gave us a little bit of a screwing there. In the end it didn't really matter much we just emphasized that we gave the Iraqis freedom from a tyrant- who knows maybe there is an alien liberation force hovering above us as I type ready to save us from the Obama tyrant and if they have to kill 15 million of us and displace another 60 million, destroy our infrastructure, and disperse spent uranium over wide swaths to do it, well I'm informed it's a bargain and we should be grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I don't know, why did the Spanish inquisitors do it? probably because they enjoy torturing people and it gives them plausible deniability when the **** hits the fan,- the Iraq al-Qaida connection was not used as an official pretext to go to war but somehow about 70% of Americans believed there was a connection which contributed to support for the war and as late as 2006 50% of Americans still believed it. I'm always surprised they just didn't plant WMD but **** like that gets complicated and there are a lot of sharp people out there who are still fundamentally honest, lots of sociopaths at top, not so much at the working level. WMD were a good guess, we knew they had a nuclear weapons program at one time and hell we helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988. Iraq was getting help for it's chemical and biological weapons programs from the U.S., Germany, Britain, France and Russia right up to the First Gulf war, who would've thunk that tricky bastard Saddam would actually really comply with demands to get rid of his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, kinda gave us a little bit of a screwing there. In the end it didn't really matter much we just emphasized that we gave the Iraqis freedom from a tyrant- who knows maybe there is an alien liberation force hovering above us as I type ready to save us from the Obama tyrant and if they have to kill 15 million of us and displace another 60 million, destroy our infrastructure, and disperse spent uranium over wide swaths to do it, well I'm informed it's a bargain and we should be grateful. I confess, the Faulkneresque stream-of-consciousness formatting is throwing me off. Does anyone know if there's any content in the above worth reading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I confess, the Faulkneresque stream-of-consciousness formatting is throwing me off. Does anyone know if there's any content in the above worth reading? With lyrbob as the author do you really need to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts