Text 7287, 98 rader
Skriven 2006-08-29 20:25:00 av Robert E Starr JR (7784.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Amy Guskin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <0001HW.C11A6749011C1DEDF0284530@news.verizon.net>
@REPLY:
<6n6te21mjhh9kcnng7ghven82dvvj32se6@4ax.com><98idnW0NNILS1nLZnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com><44ef770c$0$10141$9b4e6d93@new

>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:05:29 -0400, Carl wrote
(in article <CMydnZHDbPHGeWnZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@comcast.com>):

> 
> <kruegerb76@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1156857888.783336.91230@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> 
>> Carl wrote:
>>> One could argue that "Bush lied" is an example of exactly the same thing.
>> 
>> Well, all I can say is:
>> 
>> There seems to be proof that Bush was planning to attack Iraq pretty
>> much from the moment he became president.
>> 
>> He and his administration picked informants who would tell them what
>> they wanted to hear, while ignoring more solid evidence which wasn't
>> what he wanted to hear.
>> 
>> Some might say that kinda sounds like he lied.
> 
> Nope.  They would be wrong.  Intelligence agencies around the world thought 
> the same thing. People (including many Dems) said he had WMDs long before 
> Bush got in to office.  Of course selective memory and revisionist history 
> is commonplace for both sides fo the isle. <<

Yeah, Kate and Jack thought he had the WMDs, but Locke and Hurley figured 
Bush was lying...  (Sorry Carl, couldn't resist <g>)

>> Saying he lied means he KNEW there were o WMDs and said there were anyway. 
> There's no defiitive evidence that there weren't WMDs;  Not finding them 
> doesn't mean they didn't exist any more than not finding Bin Laden means 
> that he no longer exists. 
> 
> A lie is *very* different than being wrong (or possibly being wrong). In 
> this case, the Dems keep repeating it and it gets treated as fact and even 
> defended through "kinda sounds like..."  I just thought that was an example 
> of what you were talking about. <<

The difference here is that a LOT of people, in a LOT of countries (this one 
included) did NOT think that Hussein had those WMDs.  Combine that with the 
information from the Downing Street Memo, and it's pretty hard not to come to 
a damning conclusion.  It's kind of like someone calling in sick on a Friday 
and showing up tan on a Monday; you can't _prove_ they weren't home sick, but 
unless you're deaf, dumb and blind, the pieces all add up to imply very 
strongly that they _weren't_.

>> I argue the point because there is no evidence to say that he lied. He may 
> have been predispoised to war.  He may have cherry picked his intelligence. 
> He may have dismissed some contrary evidence that he heard as being 
> outweighed by the evidence that he did believe... but there is no proof that 
> has been presented that I've heard that suggests that he didn't honestly 
> believe there were WMDs in Iraq, or that he doesn't believe that a stable 
> democracy in Iraq wouldn't be better for the world. <<

If as many parents gave their kids the latitude and benefit of the doubt in 
the face of contradictory evidence as citizens of this country have been 
giving Bush, we'd have a generation of extremely ill-behaved and 
irresponsible people who believe they can never be held accountable for 
anything.

>> I used to appreciate that at least in the Senate, when one Senator is 
> speaking about another they used a certain degree of civility.  There were 
> rules of behavior that they had to follow when they were in session. 
> Unfortunately, these days any Senator is just as likely to go on a Sunday 
> morning show and say "My esteemed colleague for the state of xzy is a [Pick 
> one: racist, traitor, etc]. " <<

Yes, and the worst example of this was by the Vice President himself, to 
Patrick Leahy.  That certainly didn't do anything for the level of political 
discourse, but it's also no surprise from an Administration that believes 
it's untouchable.

>> I've raised a lot of this before. Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but


> I think that throwing words like liar, traitor, unpatriotic, evil, etc. make 
> things worse.  They force people to think in terms of "political enemy" 
> rather than "someone with a different view." <<

I don't have a problem with thinking of people who want to destroy what this 
country stands for - by trying to turn it into a theocracy, among other 
things - as enemies.  Because that's what they are.  If people don't start 
getting angry and shouting about it, if they remain quiet, then it makes it a 
little too easy for such people to take over.

Amy
                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)