Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
but not only did bill lob a buncha missiles into iraq (on multiple occasions), i think clinton has also "been proven to be (a) liar(s) and (a) manipulator(s) in the past" -- so how do we know he didn't fabricate things?

po-tay-to, po-tah-to.



But this isn't a case of Bush vs. Clinton. I think that is part of the reason it's become a question of partisanship rather than a question of intelligence and fact.

Quote:

this whole thread is pretty kooky

whomod, i don't knock you for asking the questions or taking things with the grains of delicious, delicious salt. those're good things. necessary things.

the crazy point is, to me, it seems like you're just "out to get" dubya -- even to the point where, in the past, if anyone has disagreed with your thoughts, they were viewed as blind, loyalist supporters.

so, while you may believe the bush admin is skewing info... maybe we're believing you and your articles are skewing your info on the bush admin. its an endless loop of questions impossible to answer.

the facts are... that no one knows the facts. at least, clearly, none of us. you can list 1,000 links to 1,000 articles that show the country of iraq doesn't even exist. i can retaliate with 1,500 articles that show america didn't exist, first.

just because you say stuff, doesn't make it so. if that were the case, i'd be saying many things, on a daily basis -- most consisting of the phrase "pamela." ... and later "please stop laughing."



Yep. That's why I went with a George Will column and the Christian Science Monitor articles rather than something from Hated.com, MoveOn.org or somewhere. To show that this isn't a case of hatred or partisanship. It's a question of FACTS. There was a William Buckley Jr. article that asked the same questions as well but unfortunately Buckley seems to have pulled that one particular article off of his website.

Quote:

bottom lining it, you're inclined to distrust (this specific admin). i'm inclined to believe (this specific admin). and thats pretty much all we're sure of.



I'd feel better about that if I were given reasons of why Bush earns your trust. I've given mine and I think I've tried (lately) to present them in something more reasoned and factual than simply " i hate Bush" or "because I'm a Lib" or something. I've made a point of saying I think Bush earns trust despite everything based on the sociological implications of a conservative presidency on his supporters rather than because of anything he may actually do or say. I'd like to be proven wrong on that.

David Kay has just contradicted Bush's assertions. Now I know Sadaam was bad and everyone feels rather good about him being deposed. Again, I'm not discussing that. I'm discussing assertions made exactly one year ago today that Iraq couldn't wait because we were in immimnent danger from him. It seems in our partisan back and forth that we're forgetting WHY we went to war originally. Not because Sadaaam was a cruel despot or because sanctions wearn't working but because he directly threatened the US. Or so we were told with great certainty.

But regardless, our back and forth isn't going to amount to a hill of beans anyways. It just makes for some good debate. Now it's up to the American public to decide if it matters much to them. I seriously don't think so beleive it or not. Just in talking to people who still think Sadaam was responsible for 9/11. But then I can't make those kinds of assumtions either.

We've been pretty much given a victorious war and judging from the media coverage, a rather bloodless one at that. At least as far was what is beamed into America's living rooms. Those kinds of things play more favourably than actually seeing blood and carnage and dead bodies on a nightly basis. And since I think people generally respond based on what they see on the 6:00 news, I'd say it was a case of the propaganda making the presumption of easy victory and kicking ass. Which make the reasons we wrere there in the 1st place, moot in peoples opinions

And yeah, I said propaganda. When you see only one side, a sanitized side, presented rather than the more gory coverage of the world press, then you're getting a slanted view designed to influence your opinion.


Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-23 8:26 PM.