# Serbia vs. Iraq:  You're kidding, right?



## Phoenix44 (Oct 6, 2004)

On the thread regarding the VP debates, Fool Wolf posted his or her "2 cents" supposedly comparing, in a sarcastic manner, Clinton vs. Bush. Fool Wolf stated: 



> Lemme see; have I got this straight?


and ended with: 



> Ahh, it's so confusing!


 
And it would be really clever, if it wasn't A) untrue, and B) plagiarized.

First, the facts:

In the early 90s, Iraq DID have a nuclear program. Clinton told the truth. The weapons were removed from Iraq in 1994, the year Clinton was elected. By the time of Bushs election, there were no nukes. Bush lied. 

In fact, mass graves WERE found in Serbia. That was true. WMDs were NOT found in Iraq. That claim was a lie. Its true that Milosevic hasnt been convicted yet. Thats because his trial only started today. The cost of the US strikes against Serbia wasnt even close to the 77 billion you quotedit was less than $10 billion. The war in Iraq is closing in on $200 billion, and the end is not in sight. 

Last I checked, Clinton was not convicted of ANY felony. 

As for Clinton refusing to take custody of Osama, I assume youre talking about the bogus claim that Sudan offered Osama to the Clinton administration. That is a lie. Here is a direct quote from The 911Commission Report: The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. 

Now here's why it's plagiarized: Fool Wolf's entire post can be found, essentially verbatim, at this site: http://allhatnocattle.net/msgboard.mv?parm_func=showmsg+parm_msgnum=1000359

It was said to be "not original" even at that site, which attributed it to the Chattanooga Free Press.

That post might get you a few yuks at Fox News, but it's not amusing here. While I don't agree everyone here at MT, in my humble opinion,the literacy level is high here. Check your facts. And if you're going to offer your 2 cents, at least make it YOUR 2 cents.

Oh, and by the way, last I checked, Clinton wasn't running for any office.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 6, 2004)

Oh, sure. Go ahead and rationally discuss reality. Like THAT'S going to influence the ideologues who refuse to actually look at the world or its history.


----------



## Fool Wolf (Oct 6, 2004)

Pheonix44

Your hostile tone surprises me.  The message I wrote at the beginning of my post was "my 2 cents".  I apologize for not citing the follow-on message.  I thought it was humorous and telling so decided to include it.  There were no mass graves found in Serbia!  There were mass graves found in Bosnia, both muslim and christian, from the back and forth fighting in that area.  The muslims had better p.r.  I was there.  As to WMD in Iraq after 1994, the whole point is that we did not know if they exsisted because S.H. failed to abide by the terms of his surrender of numerous UN resolutions.  Virtually every intelligence agency in the world said he has WMDs, to include France, Russia and Germany.  Bi-partisan consensus in this country was he had them, to include John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Edwards.  Hindsight is 20/20, but a commander does not have the luxury of sitting on his hands until he has a perfect picture of the situation, it will often be too late to act and those he leads will pay the price.  

BTW, many more shiite and kurd bodies filled mass graves at the hands of Saddam than all the ones in Kosovo.  And Milosavic was not a threat to the U.S.

VR
FW


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 6, 2004)

Well, it's generally considered good to cite your sources.  I'm sure you will, from now on.



> There were no mass graves found in Serbia! There were mass graves found in Bosnia, both muslim and christian, from the back and forth fighting in that area.


Semantics.  The point was, there were mass graves found as a result of Serbian atrocities committed at the behest of Milosevic and his ethnic cleasing activities.  This is unquestionable.  I personally know one of the major witnesses in the Milosevic war crimes trial referred to on this page.  It happened.



> Virtually every intelligence agency in the world said he has WMDs, to include France, Russia and Germany.


 Said?  Said when, where.... what is your source for this?  Additionally, what was the imperative for action?  If everyone was so "certain", why were there UN weapons inspectors there?


> And Milosavic was not a threat to the U.S.


 Neither was Hussein.


----------



## Fool Wolf (Oct 6, 2004)

I believe it has been documented that Saddam provided sanctuary to multiple terrorist groups, to include Abu Nidal and Al Qaeda both before and after 9/11. I know he fired on US and coalition aircraft patrolling the know fly zone for close to 10 years. He offered 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. He threatened the security of US allies to include Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Although it does not appear that he had ties to the 9/11 event, I believe we are much safer with him gone.  

The weapon inspectors had been forced out on multiple occasions and were not allowed to do there job, the imperative for action was the fact that we were embarked on a worldwide war and Iraq was a demonstrable center of gravity, because of its inclination to aid and abet our enemies, and its geographical location.

vr
FW

vr
FW


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 6, 2004)

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I believe it has been documented that Saddam provided sanctuary to multiple terrorist groups, to include Abu Nidal and Al Qaeda both before and after 9/11.


From this article,


> Mr. Cheney keeps insisting that Baghdad had "long-established" ties to al-Qaeda. This week, however, Mr. Rumsfeld pointedly disagreed. "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he told the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday.





			
				Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I know he fired on US and coalition aircraft patrolling the know fly zone for close to 10 years. He offered 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. He threatened the security of US allies to include Israel and Saudi Arabia.


Yes, and if so, why was the onus on the US to act?  If this can be considered a valid reason for invasion,why were Israel and Saudi Arabia not included in the "coalition of the willing"?  Surely if the threat to *them* was so immediate, they should have been involed, no?  Perhaps they were more inclined to wait and see what the weapons inspectors uncovered....





			
				Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> Although it does not appear that he had ties to the 9/11 event, I believe we are much safer with him gone. ....


I believe Iraqis have the _potential_ to be much safer now that he is gone.  I do not believe that US citizens are any safer.  In fact, since the invasion, many US citizens (soldiers) *have* died, that perhaps would not have.



			
				Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> The weapon inspectors had been forced out on multiple occasions and were not allowed to do there job,


They were doing their job at the time.





			
				Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> the imperative for action was the fact that we were embarked on a worldwide war and Iraq was a demonstrable center of gravity, because of its inclination to aid and abet our enemies, and its geographical location.
> 
> vr
> FW


A worldwide war against terror.  Iraq invaded under the auspice of WMD, which weapons inspectors never had the opportunity to demonstrate.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh, sure. Go ahead and rationally discuss reality. Like THAT'S going to influence the ideologues who refuse to actually look at the world or its history.


Yeah, silly me.

If you all haven't already seen it, I'd suggest you see the movie "Outfoxed."  You'd recognize these phrases used so liberally by some of our posters:

"It's been said..."
"I believe it's been said..."
"People say..."

It means, "I'm really expressing my own personal opinion, but I have no proof whatsoever to back it up."


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 7, 2004)

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> I believe it has been documented that Saddam provided sanctuary to multiple terrorist groups, to include Abu Nidal and Al Qaeda both before and after 9/11. I know he fired on US and coalition aircraft patrolling the know fly zone for close to 10 years. He offered 25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. He threatened the security of US allies to include Israel and Saudi Arabia. Although it does not appear that he had ties to the 9/11 event, I believe we are much safer with him gone.
> 
> The weapon inspectors had been forced out on multiple occasions and were not allowed to do there job, the imperative for action was the fact that we were embarked on a worldwide war and Iraq was a demonstrable center of gravity, because of its inclination to aid and abet our enemies, and its geographical location.
> 
> ...


FW,

Don't point out things that contradict the "Haters" who have nothing better to do than to try and cut down someone for making a stand and criticize how it was done (yeah it wasn't perfect, but leaders do, critics complain) instead of focusing on reform and 'fixing the problem not the blame.'

Personally, there are times when Bush can take the 'leaders never apologize/admit wrong' to an extreme, but it is better than if he were wishy washy or flip floppy on policies that will cause more damage because of constant changes.

Think about it in terms of martial arts practice.  He is a leader (head) of a great body that has to be controlled and directed.  If he, as the head, hesitates, waits for the 'perfect time' instead of digging in and committing to a plan/techique/application and then adjusts the response as things come up, he looses the momentum and leaves himself (PLEASE READ US) vulnerable to counter attacks because you are basically tap dancing in the kill zone.

YES, he as made mistakes of judgement.  YES, he has not been perfect.  That is not what seems to be the point of discussion though.  

I am not hearing that Kerry is the better choice, why?  BECAUSE HE ESSENTIALLY HASN'T DONE ANYTHING that would clarify his position (consistently) or that demonstrates his leadership to any certainty IMO.  Yes he is citing his Vietnam Days, but there are those "Swift Boat types"  that have accounted lacks in that.  Comments like "Global Test" and "Bringing nations together" on issues of American Security don't make me warm and fuzzy either.

I am hearing how Bush is an evil/Hitlerite dictator born of a fat cat Steel empire family with terrorist ties in the middle east (I buy my groceries from a Mid-East Grocer, does that make me a 'Terrorist collaborator?') trying to centralize the Federation under the executive leadership of the POTUS above all to the point of pissing on the Constitution....or was that the latest Star Wars movie I was watching...


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 7, 2004)

Way to echo the Republican talking points, Paul.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Don't point out things that contradict the "Haters" who have nothing better to do than to try and cut down someone for making a stand and criticize how it was done (yeah it wasn't perfect, but leaders do, critics complain) instead of focusing on reform and 'fixing the problem not the blame.'


 I resent the implication that it's improper to criticize an elected official who performs acts that are at best imcompetent, at worst illegal.  

 The idea that "leaders do, critics complain" implies that those of us who criticize Bush have the same executive power he does, but simply choose not to use it, instead sitting back and enjoying the easy world of bitching and moaning.  The flaws in this line of reasoning are, I hope, self-evident.

 Moreover, the idea that a leader who performs badly should be rewarded for being bold even if he was completely wrong, even if his policies led to unjust war, death, economic disaster, and degradation of America's diplomatic standing... frankly, the idea is asinine.  If we're not to remove an executive for those failings, when on earth *should* we?  This is *exactly* the point of these discussions.

 One can show leadership and resolve without screwing things up.  And resolve does not absolve (heh) someone from the responsibility to show competence and trustworthiness.

 As to "flip-flopping", we've dealt with this idea numerous times on this forum.  Can you demonstrate a policy issue on which Kerry completely "flip-flopped"?  One where his beliefs aren't clearly explained by his platform and his voting record?

 There is a whole thread where michaeledward has posted notice after notice with specifics from Kerry's policies and plans on domestic and foreign policy.  Have you read them?

 And how can you bring up the "Swift Boat Types", when it's been clearly demonstrated that these men didn't even serve directly with Kerry, and their credibility has been thoroughly destroyed?

 I can understand (though I'm deeply dismayed by) someone choosing to vote for Bush because they agree with his choices and like his plans; if we're going to attack Kerry, though, let's do it based on logic and facts rather than the disinformation and groupthink of the Repubs.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 7, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Way to echo the Republican talking points, Paul.
> 
> 
> I resent the implication that it's improper to criticize an elected official who performs acts that are at best imcompetent, at worst illegal.
> ...


Ah the power of opinion.  Well, I resent the implication that those who support Bush or don't spend our times simply bashing "De Man" but try to see the balance sheet and then VOTE our conscience are dupes of the state, stupid or 'wrong.'...

As far as the implication that there is equal power between the leader and critic...that disparity is exactly the point.  The leader risks being wrong, ruining his reputation, being criticized for actions taken.  The critic simply has to 'show the holes' and isn't held up to the same comparison or risk.  The critic simply talks about what someone else has done instead of putting his/her own neck out there and taking the equal risks that leaders take.  It is always easier to see 20/20 when you are not in it.  And it is always easier to offer reasonable sounding alternatives for a better way when there is no chance that  the critic's plan (and the leadership abilities/resolve) will be tested in reality.

"Badly" is so subjective it isn't even funny.  Have you lost your house, are we 'losing the war in Iraq', has your health care fallen apart?.... What is 'badly?'  During the Carter Administration there was some serious crap going on, how much of that is ever the POTUS's "Bad" doing and how much of that is part of a socio/political/economic cycle that the POTUS can influence but does not control entirely?  Again, ain't saying he's perfect, just saying that the "HIM" blame game instead of the "POLICY" problems (which involve more than just eh POTUS) would be more rationale.  It is so easy to simplify the problems of a war stressed nation into "BUSH" fault because, conscious of it or not, it is easier to vent to or about a face than about issues.  Consider how over simplified the "War on Terror" critics have made it.  This is not just about OBL, but the critics will oversimplify it to that when they want to shoot it down.  THere are other terrorist groups out there, there are other threats from other countries...

As far as leadership and screwing up... impossible.  Every leader will screw up, it is inevitable.  The REAL issue is what the leader does after the mistake. Does he stick to the goal but stay open to changing the plan?  Does he let the 'popular' criticism decide policy?  Does he pull back in the middle of the action and regroup - destroying any momentum/headway he may have so that he can make the 'perfect' plan?

You 'lead yourself' during sparring in martial arts everytime.  Once you commit you are in it.  If how you got there was screwed up, you don't dwell on it and bash yourself for how imperfect it was, you keep going, you adjust, you modify and you learn from it.

Do you stop and contemplate everytime you screw up in sparring for the perfect plan?  NO, you keep going and hope that you do it better next time.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 7, 2004)

> As far as the implication that there is equal power between the leader and critic...that disparity is exactly the point. The leader risks being wrong, ruining his reputation, being criticized for actions taken. The critic simply has to 'show the holes' and isn't held up to the same comparison or risk. The critic simply talks about what someone else has done instead of putting his/her own neck out there and taking the equal risks that leaders take. It is always easier to see 20/20 when you are not in it. And it is always easier to offer reasonable sounding alternatives for a better way when there is no chance that the critic's plan (and the leadership abilities/resolve) will be tested in reality.



I see. So, the lesson here is: 

Never Criticize Your Government. Ever. You Will Be Assimilated.



> "Badly" is so subjective it isn't even funny. Have you lost your house, are we 'losing the war in Iraq', has your health care fallen apart?....



None of the financial debacles you mentioned have happend to me --- then again, I'm not one of the lower class, the people you have been shafted repeatedly by this administration.

Also, to note, its ludicrous to conclude that we are "winning" in Iraq.



> It is so easy to simplify the problems of a war stressed nation into "BUSH" fault because, conscious of it or not, it is easier to vent to or about a face than about issues.



I guess it never occured that the "problems of a war stressed nation" are the fault of Bush seeing as how he's the one that put us there in the first place??



> Does he stick to the goal but stay open to changing the plan? Does he let the 'popular' criticism decide policy? Does he pull back in the middle of the action and regroup - destroying any momentum/headway he may have so that he can make the 'perfect' plan?



The problem with that assumption is that the Bush Administration doesn't have a "plan" in the first place --- and something tells me this isn't a Taoist exposition on formlessness here, but just recklessness and shoddy leadership.

The "plan" the Neocons who supported this was had was that the U.S. would be seen as "liberators" and the Iraqis, who like all human beings would just _love_ American social systems, would somehow just naturally, effortlessly "become" democratic in a matter of weeks. 

Of course, all the experts told them quite different, but hey, what do "experts" matter anyway... as long as you have baseless Ideology on your side??


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Ah the power of opinion.  Well, I resent the implication that those who support Bush or don't spend our times simply bashing "De Man" but try to see the balance sheet and then VOTE our conscience are dupes of the state, stupid or 'wrong.'...



I apologize if I gave the impression that I felt you were stupid, and I did try to emphasize that I can see reasons (even if I strongly disagree with them) why someone would support Bush.  I certainly do not think you are stupid.

Spending our time pointing out the mistakes, errors, and illegal actions of Bush does not mean we are not also examining the "balance sheet", as you put it.  However, I insist upon evaluating the "balance sheet" fairly, with facts, and evidence.

Your points about the different risks between leader and critic are noted, but frankly, irrelevant.  I am a voter, who has a partial say in who serves as the executive of this great republic of ours.  It is my right, nay, _duty_ to evaluate the performance of our current executive.  No one deserves leadership credit simply for taking risks; risks must be calculated.  

The evidence clearly shows that many of the risks taken by the Bush Administration were taken based on flimsy, even manufactured, evidence.  No one *has* to take these sort of risks.  Plenty of evidence existed showing that these risks were not necessary.  They were taken anyway, and we (and the world) are paying the price.  And so should the people who ordered the risky behavior.

Kerry and Edwards, by your logic, have even more right to criticize, since there is at least a gambler's chance that they *will* have a chance to implement their different policies.

No, I haven't lost my house.  Yes, we are losing the war in Iraq.  No, my health care hasn't fallen apart.  Yes, millions of people have fewer jobs than before Bush entered office.  Yes, millions of people no longer have health care under Bush.  Yes, the United States' diplomatic standing is badly eroded under Bush.  Yes, the nation's deficit has been enlarged more than under any other president.  Yes, there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Yes, Afghanistan is still not free.  None of this is subjective.  (Well, maybe the "losing the war in Iraq" thing... although I'm confident in my statistics and facts, have presented many in another thread, and am happy to continue that debate in another thread).

I am attacking the *policies*, the *choices*, the *actions* of the POTUS.  I try to refrain from the "Bush is so stupid", "I hate Bush", etc etc discussions because they are pointless, offensive, and as you point out, even kind of irrelevant.

Yes, there are other terrorist groups out there -- how many of them have killed thousands of American civilians?  How many of them were a direct threat to American interests before 9/11, before the invasion of Iraq?  Why do we have time and energy to confront them but we can't catch the man who plotted the 9/11 attack?  As discussed in other threads, the idea of a broad "war on terror" does a disservice to American interests and the world's stability... again, this is a Bush Administration *policy* that I find fault with.

Yes, every leader will screw up.   But what if that screwup is based completely on lies and manipulation?  Do you then simply say, "well, he lied and misled us, but at least he's determined to see it through?"



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> You 'lead yourself' during sparring in martial arts everytime.  Once you commit you are in it.  If how you got there was screwed up, you don't dwell on it and bash yourself for how imperfect it was, you keep going, you adjust, you modify and you learn from it.



Let's extend your metaphor so it actually applies to the topic at hand.  What if, during sparring, I refused to respect the limits and rules set by my instructor and senior students, and instead lashed out, injuring others and myself?  What if I came to class, lied about my skills, and started sparring with people who were less talented than I were, or more talented?  

What if I insisted upon continuing these disrespectful, hurtful actions?  Should I be rewarded for "staying the course" in my actions, even though they're causing harm to myself and others?

Alternately, what if I attended a martial arts class where senior students and instructors regularly kicked the crap out of me, humiliated me, or even encouraged me to perform illegal and immoral acts?  Should I reward their "boldness" and "leadership" and stick it out, or should I look for a new set of instructors and role models?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 7, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I apologize if I gave the impression that I felt you were stupid, and I did try to emphasize that I can see reasons (even if I strongly disagree with them) why someone would support Bush. I certainly do not think you are stupid.
> 
> Spending our time pointing out the mistakes, errors, and illegal actions of Bush does not mean we are not also examining the "balance sheet", as you put it. However, I insist upon evaluating the "balance sheet" fairly, with facts, and evidence.
> 
> ...


Well at least it was a topical response, thank you.

Losing the war?  It ain't over so it ain't lost.  As far as the rest, evidence may support your opinion and may be convincing (and yes I agree the Iraq shift from Afg was NOT my favorite move by Bush) because it is well constructed, BUT words like LIES and MANIPULATION/FABRICATION are all subjectivities that are MANUFACTURED by people who have agendas of their own as well - and that is something that has to be rmemebered at all times as well.

In the short term, Bush is being slammed for all this, in 100 years -depending on how things go, he may be the 'hero of 9/11' and the critics will be the subject of ridicule because "how come they couldn't see it."

I am not saying this will be for sure, only that NONE of this is over or done and the end of the world isn't here, so this is all perspective discussion.  In the grand scheme maybe it will be seen as 'worth it' because those people won't have lived through it and felt what we are feeling.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 7, 2004)

> BUT words like LIES and MANIPULATION/FABRICATION are all subjectivities that are MANUFACTURED by people who have agendas of their own as well


Actually, sometimes a lie is just a lie. For example, when Cheney says, ""I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11," it isn't a "subjectivity." It's a bald-faced *lie*. And it can disproven by videotapes of Cheney suggesting EXACTLY what he claims not to have suggested. You don't need any special "agenda" to realize that it's a lie.

When Cheney says he'd never met Edwards before the debate, that's a patent *lie*. There are videotapes of them shaking hands and sitting next to each other on a dais more than 3 years ago.

When Bush's Press Sec'y, Scott McClellan, says that the Administration never suggested that Saddam was an imminent threat, that is a *lie*. In fact, Bush himself said, "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." And there are numerous similar quotes from Rumsfeld, Cheney, and even McClellan himself ("This is about imminent threat." 2/10/03).

To anyone who is a staunch Bush supporter, I say, go ahead, vote for Bush. I won't try to convince you otherwise. I have a friend who owns a business, earns >$250K, and who did very well financially under Bush. I won't try to convince him either. But please, PLEASE, don't tell me that their patent lies are simply a misperception on my part. There's too much evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 7, 2004)

====================
Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
====================


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 7, 2004)

I thought that truth vs lies WAS the topic.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 7, 2004)

It seems to be a common degeneration of many of the threads here.  Let's attempt to distinguish this thread from the rest by perhaps drawing a comparison of the Balkan and Iraq events.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 7, 2004)

I started the thread specifically because a poster had posted untruths copied verbatim and without attribution from another website.  The untruths, which happened to involve Clinton, Serbia, Iraq, and other topics, were posted inappropriately on a completely unrelated thread about the VP Debates.  I started a new thread, so I didn't worsen the thread drift. I titled my thread in such a way that anyone who'd read the posts on the VP thread could follow it to a more appropriate venue, but added "You're kidding, right?" to indicate that perhaps we were't actually comparing Serbia and Iraq.  My very first post indicated that the topic was truth, lies, and plagiarism.  I didn't consider this a "degeneration," but the whole point of the thread.  If I'm wrong, and everyone wants to talk about Serbia instead, then I apologize, and I respectfully bow out.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 7, 2004)

No, please don't.  You created the topic - I apparently misinterpreted the intent.  My mistake, not yours.  Please carry on as you see fit. :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 8, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Actually, sometimes a lie is just a lie.
> 
> 1. For example, when Cheney says, ""I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11," it isn't a "subjectivity." It's a bald-faced *lie*. And it can disproven by videotapes of Cheney suggesting EXACTLY what he claims not to have suggested. You don't need any special "agenda" to realize that it's a lie.
> 
> ...


1. Yup he said that and is trying to 'spin' off of that for context.

2. Could it simply been an issue of "I have never met with Edwards about the debate before the debate" presented in a short hand way, so that people who are just looking for more reasons to hate the man end up interpretting it into LIE because they are taking it out of CONTEXT?

3. Agreed. Not disputing the statements made, or the fact that there is an inconsistency, but then again how often have we played the "hind sight is 20/20 game" in our own lives and answered 'diplomatically' about it later. I know there have been MANY a day when I have been told by my wife "But that isn't what you said" and I have said something along the lines of "But, in that moment this is what I meant..." Is it right? No. Is it the way EVERYONE operates in some way? YES.

4. Never said that they were not spinning, changing their tunes or remanufacturing the current statements and manipulating past to link it to the present. I WAS talking about how people who have agendas throw words like LIES and MANIPULATIONS around with such moral indignation as if no one else has ever done this before (either president or personal) and NEVER had to maintain a public bearing that was not necessarily consistent with their personal convictions or knowledge....or had to 'change their tune' midstride while trying to keep the confidence of someone else.  What if Bush/Cheney came out and said that they had lied, screwed up, scammed the people so they could line their pockets but wanted to change their ways and do better....RIGHT.  Or what if it was just a simple statement of "I made a mistake, but have corrected it"...demonstrates honesty and integrity right?  Sure, PERSONALLY it is very purging but what price would it cost the sense of stability in the NATION?  What more damage because of that little bit of doubt in the mind of a soldier?  It is already there, no doubt (because it is going to happen anyway) but that is the logic behind it.

Heretic,

My point is NOT that we, as citizens don't have the right or ability or should not criticize our leaders, but when has complaining for complainings sake EVER solved the problem. VOTE, LOBBY, Support your causes/party affliations if appropriate, but some of the "Kerry/Bush/Reagan/Carter/Clinton SUCK (Well, Clinton was serviced so he really doesn't belong on that list ) slinging smacks of the same tactic as smeer campaigns that NO ONE here likes to see in politics - so why is it permissible for us if it isn't 'cricket' for them?  Also, if you have never taken up the mantle of leadership and felt what it is like personally, you may have ideas and examples of what you think works and doesn't, but you only know about it, you don't know it - so that makes any criticism so filled with hatred and hostility hard to take without a grain of salt (not you individually so much as the trend/pattern overall).

And don't give me the 'lack of equal powers' argument either because it isn't about 'equal power' it is about character and behavior. Are these guys 'ordinary guys', if so why hold them to a higher expectation. Are they 'leaders and more is expected of them? Then WE should be trying to behave as 'personal leaders' and not hold ourselves to some 'lower standard' of conduct. We are all 'leaders of ourselves' so how we smack on others, POTUS or otherwise says more about us as a mob or individuals than it does about the target.

Remeber, folks, it ain't over yet.  I am sure there are people who lived through WWII who feel much differently than the current Pedestal worshipping mentallity that is so popular now.  There were people who lived through it that felt exactly as some folks do about this one.  In 100 years though the perspective will be different, just like it is now about Korea, WWII, Civil War...
Who knows if there are pieces of information that won't be revealed much later on that justify and redeem Bush/Cheney...

I keep thinking about that Chinese parable about the man who reserved judgement on a whole sequence of events and said "we'll see."


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 8, 2004)

> Or what if it was just a simple statement of "I made a mistake, but have corrected it"...demonstrates honesty and integrity right?



Whoa, whoa, whoa.... are you actually referencing admitting that "I was wrong, I'm sorry, let's find a way to solve this problem" in reference to _the Bush administration_ are you?? Are you serious?? These guys have _never_ admitted to the plethora of mistakes and bungles that they have made (whether intentionally or not) in their four-year term.

Changing your tune to look good politically does not constitute admitting you made a mistake. Its called lying. Sure, a lotta politicians do (and have done) it, but that doesn't change what it is.

Also, to note, whenever I have lied I was full well aware that what I was doing was morally deceitful. I didn't create any fantasies that what I was doing was "socially justified" or for a more important cause (which lies sometimes are, but neither mine nor Bush's were).

Also, the argument that "well, everyone else has done it!" is the most slippery slope of a moral argument that you can ever put forth. Lying is lying is lying --- especially in regards to dishing out justifications for a war.

I could maybe buy the "taken out of context" argument for some things, but not when it was directly applied to arguments that launched our country into a war and resulted in the deaths of over one thousand American citizens. Contextualist, yes. Relativist, no.

Laterz.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 8, 2004)

loki, it's really amazing to me that you had to post an entire page of excuses to tell us that when the Vice President of the United States of America said "this," he REALLY  meant "that."   I think the VP is perfectly capable of saying exactly what he means to say without you or anyone else having to explain what he REALLY meant.

Cheney is a shrewd and accomplished liar. He looks the American public straight in the eye, and lies unapologetically.  It's not "context," or "spinning off" something.  It's lying.

Imagine if my kid came to me and said, "I did all my homework."  Then I find out that he DIDN'T do his homework, so I confront him.  He says, "Well, I MEANT that I did all of last week's homework," or "I meant that I did all my English homework...I didn't know you were refering to all my other homework, too," or "Well, you said 'homework'...but in Spanish class, we call it tareas, so I didn't know what you were talking about."  It's a lie.  I wouldn't excuse it in my kid, I certainly don't excuse Mr. Cheney, who lies constantly.

As I've said before, vote for whomever you want.  BUt it doesn't change the fact that this administration lies incessantly, accepts responsibility for nothing, admits no mistakes ever, and will say or do ANYTHING to accomplish its aim.


----------

