Your statements are so concise that they could easily be rephrased to critique the president and his devout followers (except for the "invite him home to dinner test". Bush passes this vital presidential test for a majority of US citizens.)
The post was political hackism veiled in satire. Noticing this, as babbage did, and pointing it out, does not expose a christ like and irrational following Kerry commands
You said he "has inferred it numerous times."
No, I've said he has led others to infer it, after which you ridiculed me for such inferences. To me, the questions he has been asked and the answers he has given, leave no room for doubt about what he admits to: bad appointments, not getting questions before hand, and miscalculating how fast we would overtake the Iraqi army. He deciding to invade Iraq because of exaggerated claims of WMDs, without the UN's blessing but with it's resolutions to justify the action. And this is all that he admits to doing wrong. Shame on me for inferring that he thinks he did everything perfectly." To me, that is insisting that he did nothing wrong in his Iraq policies. I guess slipping in some comments about not wanting sit on couches or letting historians judge give him a bye. Go ahead claim to critically look at his actions, but let him get away with this one. You are just lying to yourself. It is your choice to lie, not mine.
That you are imagining things and blaming other people for it reflects poorly on OTHER people?
Explain, please. You make no sense here. My inference reflects poorly on me - only to Bush supporters. Anyone with half a independent mind would come to similar inferences, or at least understand where I could infer what I did. Your revisionist version of pre-war events are the only thing that require imagination. But I'm not blaming anyone for that. I understand that you have bought the party line, and do not blame you for it.
Bullshit. I know lots of Bush supporters, probably a lot more than you, and none of them think this.
nor did i claim that. 'When he claims no mistakes, non-supporters hear "I'm perefect".'
We have been leading the world in many areas
Yes, but in the cases you listed, we were either the "leaders" prior to Iraq (North Korea), or the situation is one that requires simple leadership (Haiti, Darfur/Sudan, and Libya). If we acquired intelligence that required military action, who would believe it. You admit that you wouldn't by saying you've never believed WMD claims that we used to justify the war in Iraq. That is a credibility gap that has developed that will prevent us from truly leading in the near term.
We had a great opportunity after 9/11 to be leaders. Instead we attacked Iraq. Why?
because we were led by a fool, and fooled by our leader. Any better explanation is filled with lies and distortions. An incredible amount of insiders have spoken out against the administration and have been publicly ridiculed, including Richard Clark stating that Iraq was a desired target on 9/12. The 9/11 commision, that the president fought against (wonder why?), brought credibility to Clark. Condi Rice, on the other hand, was a joke at the hearings, and very much discredited the adminstration. Watch her opening set of questions/semi-answers for proof. All CYA, all the time.
What? In your journal you state "We know Iraq had some WMD agents and delivery systems. What is in question is whether they had *significant* programs for *NBC* weaponry (that is, nuclear, biological, chemical): and the answer to that question, by all indications, is No. But that doesn't mean there were no WMD: in fact, there were."
It is obvious that you will support the president, no matter the details. Please, if he is (finally:-) ) elected, don't buy all of his crap without critically inspecting it.
Trust me, if Kerry is elected, I will not buy any of his crap without critical review.
I don't mean to piss you off. We have very different views of the world, and the fact that we can discuss and argue our views civilly is what makes our country great. So keep bringing it on, I will not hide.
When asked to name his major mistakes, and the only thing he could come up with are:
in an April press conference: (paraphrasing, not quoting) Can't think of anything off the top of my head. You should have given me that question written in advance.
In the NYT article: (paraphrasing) We miscalculated how fast and efficently that we would win.
during the second debate: (again, paraphrasing) Some appointments, but don't want to name them.
These are not lies or misrepresentations. You claim I misquote or misremember these instances, but it is not so. These are all well publisized events, and in each instance his exact words were chosen carefully. When I hear/read these words, I infer that he is claiming that he has not made mistakes in Iraq (other than miscalculating how fast we would win). Infering this does not take a leap of faith, and only reflects poorly on me to Bush supporters.
The problem is that what he said was non-specific and interruptible based on the listener's current beliefs. When he claims no mistakes, non-supporters hear "I'm perefect". When he says history will judge him, supporters hear "I've made mistakes". In reality, he has said nothing. Great politics, horrible leadership.
Doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we are now credibly bankrupt. We have no way to lead with current world situations or upcoming problems. Again, an incredible lack of leadership.
Check the link to defination of unilaterial in the last comment.
Many of the nations in the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq stand to receive substantial aid packages and trade benefits from the United States in return for their support. The administration is providing billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars in "aid packages" to garner support for the war for countries like Turkey. Of the 30+ original coalition "members', 19 countries offering only political and/or moral support, and one was named without it's knowledge (Solomon Islands), and one was Afganistain. Nine were/are seeking membership into NATO. An Institute for Policy Studies report found that "most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."
In March of 2003, Ari Fleischer said that the adminstration has "all along said, in terms of actual active combat, there will be very, very few countries."
Over 99% of these troops were from the US or UK.
Without the US's politicing, would the coalition have been created? Did any nations besides the US and UK present evidence insisting immediate action? The coalition was a huge sham, created only for political purposes.
As a point of clarification, the UN security council is significant because of its broad view of the issues. Marginalizing Russia, China, and France is significantly greater of a lie than marginalizing the "coalition of the willing".
And he never insisted that, nor even implied it.
No, but he leads people to infer it.
There was no no unilateral invasion of Iraq. [ed] ?
Ok, then where was the support of the UN, and the resolution that we were enforcing? The US and the UK invaded Iraq, no UN troops were involved. A majority of the permanent UN security council (France, Russia, China) condemned the action. During the first five months of the war, the only casualties were US and UK. Yes, two nations were involved, but both were acting in defiance of international opinions and support. It was a very one sided decision.
he said he miscalculated
I believe that I mentioned his admission in the argument that you quoted.
But he did not admit a mistake, just a "post-war miscalculation". In the article you link, he said, 'just as his father has done, that he would resist going "on the couch" to rethink decisions.' Again, implying he would not change any of his decisions if he were to make them again.
Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up. -- John A. Appleman
If you read the original statement, the use of the phrase "the president insists that he did everything perfectly" was in relation to the invasion of Iraq. They only time the president has every critically admitted a flaw about the unilateral invasion of Iraq, was when he stated we were too successful in taking Iraq, and we weren't prepared for that success. In every other case, he has defended his decisions and stated that he would make them again.
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..." -- C.S. Lewis
You're quite wrong, if for no other reason that there were two reasons given in the congressional authorization for war
UN resolution 1441 was drafted because of "Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction". You are quite correct, and you make my point quite nicely. The justification given to congress implied the backing of the UN, and the enforcement of a UN resolution. We unilaterally invaded Iraq for not following a UN resolution about WMD and because of our "evidence" of Iraq's WMDs. The UN as a whole wanted the inspection process to finish, and progress was being made. During his speech urging war to the UN, Powell states
"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." So yes, there were two reasons presented. 1) Iraq's WMDs, and 2) Iraq's unwillingness to follow the UN security resolution 1441 on Iraq's WMDs.
He never said any such thing.
No, but he has inferred it numerous times. During the second debate, he claimed his biggest mistakes in office were appointments of people. In a news conference in April of this year when asked what mistakes he said : "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one"
So, literally, yes the president has never stated that "I did everything perfectly", but he has most defiantly implied it. Calling such an inference, a lie, shows a ignorance of logic.
True, but this was the ONLY reason presented by our government for unilateral action against the will of the UN and most of our allies. It is hard to argue that the removal of Saddam was a bad thing, but pissing of the rest of the world (except Britain and Poland -- ok, well Poland is pissed now too) and ignoring the UN security council is going to make it infinitely more difficult to deal with much bigger and pressing problems (Iran, and North Korea).
The rush that is often spoke of is the ignoring of the UN - as opposed to forcing the UN and world into action. We were headed down a path were we could have justified the invasion in the UN, but abandoned it for unilateral action. The "cowboy up" mentality cost the US lots of respect. It is this "rush to war" that is the problem.
Both candidates agree on the fact that Saddam was bad and the need to remove him was great. Both agree that the war was justified by the many valid reasons including the threat of WMDs.
And if you listen to what each of the candidates say, as opposed to what they say about each other, the difference is that John Kerry believes the current administration made many bad decisions related to the invasion including:
unilateral preemptive strike with invalid justification (do you really think that going back afterwards and saying, "sorry world, we were wrong about the WMDs, but things are better now, so don't worry", is good? Had any other nation pulled that crap , the US would be outraged);
poor planning of post invasion Iraq (unguarded nuclear materials and explosives have disappeared).
While the president insists that he did everything perfectly, and would do the same again knowing what he knows now.
So, yes, some of your arguments are correct, some are questionable (Saddam's terrorist operating in Isreal, Kuwait - are spies terrorists?), but are you missing the big picture?
Did you watch the program? I didn't, but am curious how it was presented.
Not sure I agree that atrocities were committed to Sinclair. They really went out on a limb to broadcast this news program, and it seemed that the "Under Fire" program was the initial concern, the final program just a last minute CYA. It is unusual for them to produce a news program, and really opened the door for the critism they received. And it was a no win situation. If they presented either candidate in a negative light, that candidate's supporters would cry foul. The fact that they have more history as a partisan supporter than as news organization caused the outrage and the allegations.
Part of why the obviously faked memos were difficult for the news media to figure out was because they were all more upset that they were scooped than looking to defend or attack the report.
I took partisan bloggers, looking for any way to defend "their guy", to figure out the memos were false.
The coordination that you infer between Kerry and CBS is b.s., but CBS's rose colored glasses tainted their judgment. The story itself was true, and not legimately desputed. But why was it a story? Who didn't already think/know that Pres. Bush got special treatment in the National Guard? Who didn't know that Pres. Bush was irresponsible when he was a young man? None of these things are relevant in this election. Pres. Bush is no longer a young man, and no longer is irresponsible. He turned a corner at some point, and no one can dispute that he is a much different person today. I feel that many of the Vietnam era attacks on both men running for President hurt us as a nation, and news organization have legitimized the attacks by defending, repeating, and rebutting them.
I support Kerry because I feel he has a better chance of cleaning up the mess that Bush's adminstration has made. I respect Pres. Bush as a man, but not as a leader. Now, my question to you: Why do you support Bush?
Do you think that pulling the together the US after 9/11 took courage and leadership? Any idiot in the White House could have done that. It was the people that came together, not a leader that brought them together.
Do you think that attacking Iraq was an immediate priority? And if so, was doing it in a way that alienated us from the world (except for England and Poland, and 28 other small countries) the sign of a good leader? After 9/11 nearly every country in the world supported our war on terror. After we unilaterally decided to attack Iraq, only a handful supported us. Only an idiot in the White House could have done that.
Do you think that the tax refund check you received is worth your vote? Are you bought off that easy? By giving huge tax breaks while simultaneously waging war, by increasing spending and decreasing taxes, our leader is bankrupting the country for our children.
You can not both support the war in Iraq and tax breaks without leaving the costs for our children. Is your selfish desire to acquire more money worth more to you than the soldiers fighting in Iraq or the kids that will have to eventual pay for our short sidedness?
Few Americans still contest the previous Presidential election. The process that was followed afterwards was very tense, but needed. The democrats, and Al Gore, should be commended for keeping the country together by not attempting to invalidate or attack the Supreme Court's decision.
Having your election decided by a razor thin margin in a state run by your brother and elections presided over by your campaign manager of the state destroys trust in the election process. Admitting defeat after following legitimate procedures for reviewing the election restores the trust. Blasting the democrats for not wanting to be burnt again is ridiculous, unfair, and blatantly biased.
If California were close, you better believe that there would be republicans preparing to battle Kevin Shelly (CA Sec. of State), and for good reason.
Now, my big question to you. Why do you support Bush?
Do you think that pulling the together the US after 9/11 took courage and leadership? Any idiot in the White House could have done that. It was the people that came together, not a leader that brought them together.
Do you think that attacking Iraq was an immediate priority? And if so, was doing it in a way that alienated us from the world (except for England and Poland, and 28 other small countries) the sign of a good leader? After 9/11 nearly every country in the world supported our war on terror. After we unilaterally decided to attack Iraq, only a handful supported us. Only an idiot in the White House could have done that.
Do you think that the tax refund check you received is worth your vote? Are you bought off that easy? By giving huge tax breaks while simultaneously waging war, by increasing spending and decreasing taxes, our leader is bankrupting the country for our children.
You can not both support the war in Iraq and tax breaks without leaving the costs for our children. Is your selfish desire to acquire more money worth more to you than the soldiers fighting in Iraq or the kids that will have to eventual pay for our short sidedness?
Yes, but if you wanted to exercise your "First Amendment Rights"*, how much of the US Population would you reach?
Money buys influence. 25% of the US Population is big influence.
* this is not about First Amendment Rights, it is about fairness, decency, and politics. No views or viewpoints are being suppressed. The inappropriate use of this term is in reference to other comments on this subject, and as a way to sneak in a short comment about my views of using the term in this discussion. Please disregard that term for any other use.
The First Amendment, or more correctly, the ingrained beliefs of freedom of speech, are not being suppressed or enhanced by the airing of these documentaries. Both are available, and are not being suppressed by the government. In this case the debate is over what is politically fair in an election year.
I agree that the broadcasting of F911 or Stolen Honor would be a good thing provided that is was done in a fair and decent way. I've been often branded as a "liberal", and I truly believe that broadcasting F911 would only work if it were done with some thought. There would need to be some credible debate and investigation of the documentary at the same time as it is shown. I've seen the movie, and although it is quite straight about the facts presented, it is slanted to prove a point. Without a credible rebuttal, then it is just election propaganda.
I have not seen Stolen Honor yet, but there needs to be a critical look at the movie to make it a useful documentary. I think the fear you are seeing (and the calls to suppress the airing of the documentary) are based on the belief that it is not a fair version of the life of Kerry, and that it will not be presented in a fair and balanced manner by Sinclair. CBS lost a lot of respect and fessed up to its mistake on air. Does anyone truly believe that any station in the Sinclair goup will do the same if there are inaccuricies in the program?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire
I've seen dozens of anti-Bush "documentaries" and "news magazine stories" on TV over the last year.
The sitting president is, and always should be, open for more criticism than anyone else in the nation. Bush's inability to admit mistakes, his willingness to push his political agenda, and the fact that many feel that his election was at least controversial, all add to the need to critical look at his decisions. (the fact that most critical looks at this administration are not too complementary is a different item)
Just because a news article or report doesn't follow the current day's talking points doesn't meant that the report has a liberal bias. When you hear "liberal bias" brandished about, think about it with a open mind; most of the time, any fact (like listing the names of the fallen in Iraq) not agreeing with the Republicans current talking points are labeled as "liberal". Critically investigating or reporting on an administration and its actions is not a "left wing" bias or "hatchet-job tabloid" journalism, but instead an important part of the political process, and one of the best uses of free speech in this country. The fake document CBS report was, in essence, true and relevant only because of the attacks on Kerry about his service during the Vietnam era. This report was not a "hachet-job", it was just poor journalism (double check you sources, and don't trust one with an axe to grind). Ironically, it did more to help the president than it hurt him.
If "Fahrenheit 9/11" were aired commercial free on TV before the election, you would hear the same cries of foul in reverse. No hypocrisy, just politics.
If Sinclair were truly interested in being fair and furthering the democratic process, it would air both "Stolen Honor" and Going Upriver, in the same commercial free time slot on consecutive evenings. This would show two sides of the same man and actions. But the democratic process and fairness are not on Sinclair's agenda.
Now, wait a minute, I work for one of them wasteful defense contractors, and the paycheck is very nice. The money being spent is an important part of fighting threats to our citizens and our values. Plus it is also one of the few IT jobs that won't be outsourced.
Now given that, had the current President acted responsibly after 9/11, we could have been pooling the resources of the world to fight terrorism and not needed to waste so much money doing it alone. Any fool could have "led" the American people to bounce back after 9/11. But only a fool could have turned a world of countries united to fight terrorism into a coalition of the "willing" (aka bribed). Had the President not alienated the US from most of its allies and nearly all of the rest of the world, we could be spending a fraction of what we are now on defence, triming the budget, and actually giving the working class a real tax break.
Or fix social security. Bush on social security, Muskegon, Michigan, Sep. 13, 2004: "And baby boomers are fine. We're in good shape, you know. The people who aren't in good shape are the children and grandchildren in this country..."
I agree with you about trickle up, but also believe that the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren will criple this nation. Paying interest to debts gives our tax money (that could be paying for the front-line workers) to rich domestic and foriegn investors.
Slashdot Mirror
Given:
1) Airport express
2) iPod with big drive
The next step is wireless streaming from the iPod to the Airport Express.
The remote is the music, and the music is the remote.
I was just really surprised that such juvenile arguments would come from someone paid to comment.
He is frustrating, but also fun. Maybe that is his goal, professional baiter (and a master at it).
Ignored his info until I saw your posts (and have been enjoying them).
especially to sites with that evil c word in it.
You did get me. I am at work, and don't dare follow links here :).
You're painting with a very wide brush.
Your statements are so concise that they could easily be rephrased to critique the president and his devout followers (except for the "invite him home to dinner test". Bush passes this vital presidential test for a majority of US citizens.)
The post was political hackism veiled in satire. Noticing this, as babbage did, and pointing it out, does not expose a christ like and irrational following Kerry commands
You're kidding me? He is an editor?
Tow that party line. Go go team!
You said he "has inferred it numerous times."
No, I've said he has led others to infer it, after which you ridiculed me for such inferences. To me, the questions he has been asked and the answers he has given, leave no room for doubt about what he admits to: bad appointments, not getting questions before hand, and miscalculating how fast we would overtake the Iraqi army. He deciding to invade Iraq because of exaggerated claims of WMDs, without the UN's blessing but with it's resolutions to justify the action. And this is all that he admits to doing wrong. Shame on me for inferring that he thinks he did everything perfectly." To me, that is insisting that he did nothing wrong in his Iraq policies. I guess slipping in some comments about not wanting sit on couches or letting historians judge give him a bye. Go ahead claim to critically look at his actions, but let him get away with this one. You are just lying to yourself. It is your choice to lie, not mine.
That you are imagining things and blaming other people for it reflects poorly on OTHER people?
Explain, please. You make no sense here. My inference reflects poorly on me - only to Bush supporters. Anyone with half a independent mind would come to similar inferences, or at least understand where I could infer what I did. Your revisionist version of pre-war events are the only thing that require imagination. But I'm not blaming anyone for that. I understand that you have bought the party line, and do not blame you for it.
Bullshit. I know lots of Bush supporters, probably a lot more than you, and none of them think this.
nor did i claim that. 'When he claims no mistakes, non-supporters hear "I'm perefect".'
We have been leading the world in many areas
Yes, but in the cases you listed, we were either the "leaders" prior to Iraq (North Korea), or the situation is one that requires simple leadership (Haiti, Darfur/Sudan, and Libya). If we acquired intelligence that required military action, who would believe it. You admit that you wouldn't by saying you've never believed WMD claims that we used to justify the war in Iraq. That is a credibility gap that has developed that will prevent us from truly leading in the near term.
We had a great opportunity after 9/11 to be leaders. Instead we attacked Iraq. Why?
because we were led by a fool, and fooled by our leader. Any better explanation is filled with lies and distortions. An incredible amount of insiders have spoken out against the administration and have been publicly ridiculed, including Richard Clark stating that Iraq was a desired target on 9/12. The 9/11 commision, that the president fought against (wonder why?), brought credibility to Clark. Condi Rice, on the other hand, was a joke at the hearings, and very much discredited the adminstration. Watch her opening set of questions/semi-answers for proof. All CYA, all the time.
I never believed that Hussein had WMD.
What? In your journal you state "We know Iraq had some WMD agents and delivery systems. What is in question is whether they had *significant* programs for *NBC* weaponry (that is, nuclear, biological, chemical): and the answer to that question, by all indications, is No. But that doesn't mean there were no WMD: in fact, there were."
Lie seems to be your favorite word. no wonder.
It is obvious that you will support the president, no matter the details. Please, if he is (finally :-) ) elected, don't buy all of his crap without critically inspecting it.
Trust me, if Kerry is elected, I will not buy any of his crap without critical review.
I don't mean to piss you off. We have very different views of the world, and the fact that we can discuss and argue our views civilly is what makes our country great. So keep bringing it on, I will not hide.
What is your excuse?
I left the W reality distortion field about a year ago.
When asked to name his major mistakes, and the only thing he could come up with are:
in an April press conference: (paraphrasing, not quoting) Can't think of anything off the top of my head. You should have given me that question written in advance.
In the NYT article: (paraphrasing) We miscalculated how fast and efficently that we would win.
during the second debate: (again, paraphrasing) Some appointments, but don't want to name them.
These are not lies or misrepresentations. You claim I misquote or misremember these instances, but it is not so. These are all well publisized events, and in each instance his exact words were chosen carefully. When I hear/read these words, I infer that he is claiming that he has not made mistakes in Iraq (other than miscalculating how fast we would win). Infering this does not take a leap of faith, and only reflects poorly on me to Bush supporters.
The problem is that what he said was non-specific and interruptible based on the listener's current beliefs. When he claims no mistakes, non-supporters hear "I'm perefect". When he says history will judge him, supporters hear "I've made mistakes". In reality, he has said nothing. Great politics, horrible leadership.
Doesn't change the fact that as a nation, we are now credibly bankrupt. We have no way to lead with current world situations or upcoming problems. Again, an incredible lack of leadership.
Check the link to defination of unilaterial in the last comment.
Many of the nations in the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq stand to receive substantial aid packages and trade benefits from the United States in return for their support. The administration is providing billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars in "aid packages" to garner support for the war for countries like Turkey. Of the 30+ original coalition "members', 19 countries offering only political and/or moral support, and one was named without it's knowledge (Solomon Islands), and one was Afganistain. Nine were/are seeking membership into NATO. An Institute for Policy Studies report found that "most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."
In March of 2003, Ari Fleischer said that the adminstration has "all along said, in terms of actual active combat, there will be very, very few countries."
Albania: 70
Australia: 2000
Poland: 200
Romania: 278
UK: 45,000
US: 300,000
Over 99% of these troops were from the US or UK.
Without the US's politicing, would the coalition have been created? Did any nations besides the US and UK present evidence insisting immediate action? The coalition was a huge sham, created only for political purposes.
As a point of clarification, the UN security council is significant because of its broad view of the issues. Marginalizing Russia, China, and France is significantly greater of a lie than marginalizing the "coalition of the willing".
It's like arguing with a brick wall, isn't it?
No, this is just appropriate debate about nuances of fine points, and nuisance of differing opinions.
And he never insisted that, nor even implied it.
.
No, but he leads people to infer it.
There was no no unilateral invasion of Iraq. [ed] ?
Ok, then where was the support of the UN, and the resolution that we were enforcing? The US and the UK invaded Iraq, no UN troops were involved. A majority of the permanent UN security council (France, Russia, China) condemned the action. During the first five months of the war, the only casualties were US and UK. Yes, two nations were involved, but both were acting in defiance of international opinions and support. It was a very one sided decision
he said he miscalculated
I believe that I mentioned his admission in the argument that you quoted.
But he did not admit a mistake, just a "post-war miscalculation". In the article you link, he said, 'just as his father has done, that he would resist going "on the couch" to rethink decisions.' Again, implying he would not change any of his decisions if he were to make them again.
Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up. -- John A. Appleman
If you read the original statement, the use of the phrase "the president insists that he did everything perfectly" was in relation to the invasion of Iraq. They only time the president has every critically admitted a flaw about the unilateral invasion of Iraq, was when he stated we were too successful in taking Iraq, and we weren't prepared for that success. In every other case, he has defended his decisions and stated that he would make them again.
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..." -- C.S. Lewis
You're quite wrong, if for no other reason that there were two reasons given in the congressional authorization for war
UN resolution 1441 was drafted because of "Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction". You are quite correct, and you make my point quite nicely. The justification given to congress implied the backing of the UN, and the enforcement of a UN resolution. We unilaterally invaded Iraq for not following a UN resolution about WMD and because of our "evidence" of Iraq's WMDs. The UN as a whole wanted the inspection process to finish, and progress was being made. During his speech urging war to the UN, Powell states "The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world." So yes, there were two reasons presented. 1) Iraq's WMDs, and 2) Iraq's unwillingness to follow the UN security resolution 1441 on Iraq's WMDs.
He never said any such thing.
No, but he has inferred it numerous times. During the second debate, he claimed his biggest mistakes in office were appointments of people. In a news conference in April of this year when asked what mistakes he said : "I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one"
So, literally, yes the president has never stated that "I did everything perfectly", but he has most defiantly implied it. Calling such an inference, a lie, shows a ignorance of logic.
True, but this was the ONLY reason presented by our government for unilateral action against the will of the UN and most of our allies. It is hard to argue that the removal of Saddam was a bad thing, but pissing of the rest of the world (except Britain and Poland -- ok, well Poland is pissed now too) and ignoring the UN security council is going to make it infinitely more difficult to deal with much bigger and pressing problems (Iran, and North Korea).
The rush that is often spoke of is the ignoring of the UN - as opposed to forcing the UN and world into action. We were headed down a path were we could have justified the invasion in the UN, but abandoned it for unilateral action. The "cowboy up" mentality cost the US lots of respect. It is this "rush to war" that is the problem.
Both candidates agree on the fact that Saddam was bad and the need to remove him was great. Both agree that the war was justified by the many valid reasons including the threat of WMDs.
And if you listen to what each of the candidates say, as opposed to what they say about each other, the difference is that John Kerry believes the current administration made many bad decisions related to the invasion including:
While the president insists that he did everything perfectly, and would do the same again knowing what he knows now.
So, yes, some of your arguments are correct, some are questionable (Saddam's terrorist operating in Isreal, Kuwait - are spies terrorists?), but are you missing the big picture?
Did you watch the program? I didn't, but am curious how it was presented.
Not sure I agree that atrocities were committed to Sinclair. They really went out on a limb to broadcast this news program, and it seemed that the "Under Fire" program was the initial concern, the final program just a last minute CYA. It is unusual for them to produce a news program, and really opened the door for the critism they received. And it was a no win situation. If they presented either candidate in a negative light, that candidate's supporters would cry foul. The fact that they have more history as a partisan supporter than as news organization caused the outrage and the allegations.
Part of why the obviously faked memos were difficult for the news media to figure out was because they were all more upset that they were scooped than looking to defend or attack the report.
I took partisan bloggers, looking for any way to defend "their guy", to figure out the memos were false.
The coordination that you infer between Kerry and CBS is b.s., but CBS's rose colored glasses tainted their judgment. The story itself was true, and not legimately desputed. But why was it a story? Who didn't already think/know that Pres. Bush got special treatment in the National Guard? Who didn't know that Pres. Bush was irresponsible when he was a young man? None of these things are relevant in this election. Pres. Bush is no longer a young man, and no longer is irresponsible. He turned a corner at some point, and no one can dispute that he is a much different person today. I feel that many of the Vietnam era attacks on both men running for President hurt us as a nation, and news organization have legitimized the attacks by defending, repeating, and rebutting them.
I support Kerry because I feel he has a better chance of cleaning up the mess that Bush's adminstration has made. I respect Pres. Bush as a man, but not as a leader. Now, my question to you: Why do you support Bush?
Do you think that pulling the together the US after 9/11 took courage and leadership? Any idiot in the White House could have done that. It was the people that came together, not a leader that brought them together.
Do you think that attacking Iraq was an immediate priority? And if so, was doing it in a way that alienated us from the world (except for England and Poland, and 28 other small countries) the sign of a good leader? After 9/11 nearly every country in the world supported our war on terror. After we unilaterally decided to attack Iraq, only a handful supported us. Only an idiot in the White House could have done that.
Do you think that the tax refund check you received is worth your vote? Are you bought off that easy? By giving huge tax breaks while simultaneously waging war, by increasing spending and decreasing taxes, our leader is bankrupting the country for our children.
You can not both support the war in Iraq and tax breaks without leaving the costs for our children. Is your selfish desire to acquire more money worth more to you than the soldiers fighting in Iraq or the kids that will have to eventual pay for our short sidedness?
How selfish are you?
Few Americans still contest the previous Presidential election. The process that was followed afterwards was very tense, but needed. The democrats, and Al Gore, should be commended for keeping the country together by not attempting to invalidate or attack the Supreme Court's decision.
Having your election decided by a razor thin margin in a state run by your brother and elections presided over by your campaign manager of the state destroys trust in the election process. Admitting defeat after following legitimate procedures for reviewing the election restores the trust. Blasting the democrats for not wanting to be burnt again is ridiculous, unfair, and blatantly biased.
If California were close, you better believe that there would be republicans preparing to battle Kevin Shelly (CA Sec. of State), and for good reason.
Now, my big question to you. Why do you support Bush?
Do you think that pulling the together the US after 9/11 took courage and leadership? Any idiot in the White House could have done that. It was the people that came together, not a leader that brought them together.
Do you think that attacking Iraq was an immediate priority? And if so, was doing it in a way that alienated us from the world (except for England and Poland, and 28 other small countries) the sign of a good leader? After 9/11 nearly every country in the world supported our war on terror. After we unilaterally decided to attack Iraq, only a handful supported us. Only an idiot in the White House could have done that.
Do you think that the tax refund check you received is worth your vote? Are you bought off that easy? By giving huge tax breaks while simultaneously waging war, by increasing spending and decreasing taxes, our leader is bankrupting the country for our children.
You can not both support the war in Iraq and tax breaks without leaving the costs for our children. Is your selfish desire to acquire more money worth more to you than the soldiers fighting in Iraq or the kids that will have to eventual pay for our short sidedness?
Mr. Bush supporters, how selfish are you?
Yes, but if you wanted to exercise your "First Amendment Rights"*, how much of the US Population would you reach?
Money buys influence. 25% of the US Population is big influence.
* this is not about First Amendment Rights, it is about fairness, decency, and politics. No views or viewpoints are being suppressed. The inappropriate use of this term is in reference to other comments on this subject, and as a way to sneak in a short comment about my views of using the term in this discussion. Please disregard that term for any other use.
The First Amendment, or more correctly, the ingrained beliefs of freedom of speech, are not being suppressed or enhanced by the airing of these documentaries. Both are available, and are not being suppressed by the government. In this case the debate is over what is politically fair in an election year.
I agree that the broadcasting of F911 or Stolen Honor would be a good thing provided that is was done in a fair and decent way. I've been often branded as a "liberal", and I truly believe that broadcasting F911 would only work if it were done with some thought. There would need to be some credible debate and investigation of the documentary at the same time as it is shown. I've seen the movie, and although it is quite straight about the facts presented, it is slanted to prove a point. Without a credible rebuttal, then it is just election propaganda.
I have not seen Stolen Honor yet, but there needs to be a critical look at the movie to make it a useful documentary. I think the fear you are seeing (and the calls to suppress the airing of the documentary) are based on the belief that it is not a fair version of the life of Kerry, and that it will not be presented in a fair and balanced manner by Sinclair. CBS lost a lot of respect and fessed up to its mistake on air. Does anyone truly believe that any station in the Sinclair goup will do the same if there are inaccuricies in the program?
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
--Voltaire
I've seen dozens of anti-Bush "documentaries" and "news magazine stories" on TV over the last year.
The sitting president is, and always should be, open for more criticism than anyone else in the nation. Bush's inability to admit mistakes, his willingness to push his political agenda, and the fact that many feel that his election was at least controversial, all add to the need to critical look at his decisions. (the fact that most critical looks at this administration are not too complementary is a different item)
Just because a news article or report doesn't follow the current day's talking points doesn't meant that the report has a liberal bias. When you hear "liberal bias" brandished about, think about it with a open mind; most of the time, any fact (like listing the names of the fallen in Iraq) not agreeing with the Republicans current talking points are labeled as "liberal". Critically investigating or reporting on an administration and its actions is not a "left wing" bias or "hatchet-job tabloid" journalism, but instead an important part of the political process, and one of the best uses of free speech in this country. The fake document CBS report was, in essence, true and relevant only because of the attacks on Kerry about his service during the Vietnam era. This report was not a "hachet-job", it was just poor journalism (double check you sources, and don't trust one with an axe to grind). Ironically, it did more to help the president than it hurt him.
If "Fahrenheit 9/11" were aired commercial free on TV before the election, you would hear the same cries of foul in reverse. No hypocrisy, just politics.
If Sinclair were truly interested in being fair and furthering the democratic process, it would air both "Stolen Honor" and Going Upriver, in the same commercial free time slot on consecutive evenings. This would show two sides of the same man and actions. But the democratic process and fairness are not on Sinclair's agenda.
Now, wait a minute, I work for one of them wasteful defense contractors, and the paycheck is very nice. The money being spent is an important part of fighting threats to our citizens and our values. Plus it is also one of the few IT jobs that won't be outsourced.
Now given that, had the current President acted responsibly after 9/11, we could have been pooling the resources of the world to fight terrorism and not needed to waste so much money doing it alone. Any fool could have "led" the American people to bounce back after 9/11. But only a fool could have turned a world of countries united to fight terrorism into a coalition of the "willing" (aka bribed). Had the President not alienated the US from most of its allies and nearly all of the rest of the world, we could be spending a fraction of what we are now on defence, triming the budget, and actually giving the working class a real tax break.
Or fix social security. Bush on social security, Muskegon, Michigan, Sep. 13, 2004: "And baby boomers are fine. We're in good shape, you know. The people who aren't in good shape are the children and grandchildren in this country..."
I agree with you about trickle up, but also believe that the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren will criple this nation. Paying interest to debts gives our tax money (that could be paying for the front-line workers) to rich domestic and foriegn investors.