President Bush Fires Back Against Critics

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

IF that happened, AND Bill claimed not to have made a statement that we all heard him make, THEN those would be reasonable conclusions.

IMO - I think your position has modified over time. A year ago, the IF/AND/THEN didn't exist.

Not defending kallend's stance, but where does this idea that everyone has to have the same ideas day in and day out? It seems we never want anyone to change...ever.

This is exactly my point and what I was calling out on.

Here's another, when did 20/20 hindsight (yet still with bias) become the standing tactic in today's debate world?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

IF that happened, AND Bill claimed not to have made a statement that we all heard him make, THEN those would be reasonable conclusions.

IMO - I think your position has modified over time. A year ago, the IF/AND/THEN didn't exist.

Not defending kallend's stance, but where does this idea that everyone has to have the same ideas day in and day out? It seems we never want anyone to change...ever.

This is exactly my point and what I was calling out on.

Here's another, when did 20/20 hindsight (yet still with bias) become the standing tactic in today's debate world?

I am not really sure what you mean. Are you calling out that kallend has changed opinion or that it is okay for the government to change its opinion or that coke is better than pepsi?


In other words, what the hell are you talking about?
Because with the knowledge held now, it would be totally excellent for the Administration to say, "hey, we fucked up." sorry. And for senators to do likewise.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Quote

IF that happened, AND Bill claimed not to have made a statement that we all heard him make, THEN those would be reasonable conclusions.

IMO - I think your position has modified over time. A year ago, the IF/AND/THEN didn't exist.

Maybe because he's answering a hypothetical?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am not really sure what you mean. Are you calling out that kallend has changed opinion or that it is okay for the government to change its opinion or that coke is better than pepsi? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

1st and foremost Coke is better than Pepsi. Tequila is better than both (let's remind ourselves of our real priorities)

Kallend used to equate being incorrect with lying. Although amusing, that didn't even fly with people on his side. Now it's more of a nuanced stance based on situational stuff he thinks he can leverage to a freaked out political rant. He's changed his stance because it's convenient to his politics stance, not because his position has evolved. (Further, if Bill thought we were in danger on the plane and told us to get out and was later wrong, I would appreciate his concern and would take exception to calls of lie-telling. Though I would join in on the mockery of his mistake and make frequent jokes about him panicking like a duck in a broken airplane.)

So it's ok to change opinions, but for cause and from data, not just because you have an axe to grind and any port in a storm will do. It's wearying.

The 20/20 hindsight attack thing is something separate (related by "you lied because you couldn't see into the future") I just like to hear people's thoughts on it - it's beaten to death nowadays. That's why I said "here's another"......

Quote

And for senators to do likewise.

But they won't, they'd use the mea culpa to further castigate etc....... (if they did, then do we really want to live with the self righteous crap of the 2 or 3 nutjobs that didn't vote for it? for completely dumb reasons at the time)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ReBirth 0]

I think you're missing the point. He didn't modify his stance. The AND/IF/THEN were used to draw a parallel between the hypothetical proposed and what Bush has done. In other words, the hypothetical didn't fit unless IF/THEN/AND were included. When you do, the hypothetical matches the reality of Bush lying, and therefore, Bill would be lying. It's actually quite logical and consistent.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think you're missing the point. He didn't modify his stance. The AND/IF/THEN were used to draw a parallel between the hypothetical proposed and what Bush has done. In other words, the hypothetical didn't fit unless IF/THEN/AND were included. When you do, the hypothetical matches the reality of Bush lying, and therefore, Bill would be lying. It's actually quite logical and consistent.

I think you're missing the point. And it's certainly neither logical and consistent. His position used to be cut and dried (albeit wrong). Now it's not either, but it didn't change for good reasons, it was simply to continue grind a dull and tired old axe. Which of course I'm doing right now so I'll stop.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,435]

>Bill Clinton, in 1998 stated that SH was building WMD's

Do you sense things flying willy-nilly over your head? Perhaps they're birds.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

I think you're missing the point. He didn't modify his stance. The AND/IF/THEN were used to draw a parallel between the hypothetical proposed and what Bush has done. In other words, the hypothetical didn't fit unless IF/THEN/AND were included. When you do, the hypothetical matches the reality of Bush lying, and therefore, Bill would be lying. It's actually quite logical and consistent.

I think you're missing the point. And it's certainly neither logical and consistent. His position used to be cut and dried (albeit wrong). Now it's not either, but it didn't change for good reasons, it was simply to continue grind a dull and tired old axe. Which of course I'm doing right now so I'll stop.

No, you are missing the point.

GWB makes a statement. It proves to be untrue or misleading. Possibly (95% chance) he was misinformed, maybe (5%) he's a liar.

Repeat the above a hundred times and a pattern emerges. 0.95^100 is a very small number. Simple probability.

Either he is a liar, or he's the most unlucky person ever to walk the face of the Earth. McCain apparently thinks that he's just unlucky.

There are just too many examples for it to be bad luck.

And for supporting evidence we have the cases where his lackeys have been caught out lying about statements the administration made on the record.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

As I said, I already stopped.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AlexCrowley 0]

A nice piece of Clue by four makes a nice baseball bat for the fast balls.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

A nice piece of Clue by four makes a nice baseball bat for the fast balls.

[billvon 2,435]

>the President gave a speech yesterday in Pennsylvania and made
>some direct points in the wake of the lies coming from the left.

Good response to this speech from Chuck Hagel (who is NOT from the left, and who knows a little more than Bush about how politics affects soldiers in the field) -

Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy

Administration Calls Statements by Democrats Harmful to War Effort, Troops

By Glenn Kessler
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

"To not question . . . is unpatriotic," Sen. Chuck Hagel said.

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late."

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

[ReBirth 0]

He's right on the money and it reflects back to why all these congress people voted the way they did. Because there was a concerted campaign of "if you're not with us, you're against us." Congress was weak and caved to the pressure, but who brought the pressure to bear? It's not like everyone had a simultaneous random urge to invade Iraq. It's been a published agenda of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Cheney, et al to invade Iraq since 1994! They pushed that agenda, and politicized it so that the weak politicians would have to commit political suicide to oppose it.

Let's for a second give the benefit of the doubt and say Bush didn't lie. He was still the key factor in pushing us into war. If not for him, we never would have invaded. And now, it's not disputed (except by rush and his newsmax source) that all our reasons for war were non existent. How is it so easy for so many to overlook what is so obvious?

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

He's right on the money and it reflects back to why all these congress people voted the way they did. Because there was a concerted campaign of "if you're not with us, you're against us." Congress was weak and caved to the pressure, but who brought the pressure to bear? It's not like everyone had a simultaneous random urge to invade Iraq. It's been a published agenda of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Cheney, et al to invade Iraq since 1994! They pushed that agenda, and politicized it so that the weak politicians would have to commit political suicide to oppose it.

Let's for a second give the benefit of the doubt and say Bush didn't lie. He was still the key factor in pushing us into war. If not for him, we never would have invaded. And now, it's not disputed (except by rush and his newsmax source) that all our reasons for war were non existent. How is it so easy for so many to overlook what is so obvious?

At the risk of flirting with Godwin, Hermann Goring said it best, in his cell at Nuremberg.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Apparently I'm not alone:

"For the first time, more than half of the public thinks Bush is not honest and trustworthy -- 52 percent to 46 percent."

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/bush.poll/

Some of us just smelled the rotten fish sooner than others.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Careful

Press "Play Video" when/if you get there
http://www.rnc.org/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Man, I love democrats as much as I love Republicans. which is to say, not much.

TEARING THIS COUNTRY APART.

hate hate hate

widne the gulf baby. Polarize the fuck out of the people. Easy to rule when everyone is so divided they cannot even work together.

God this makes me sick.

Sorry to hijack, but I am so UNBELIEVABLY SICK of democrats vs republicans. Can I press the reset button now?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[marcandalysse 0]

To me, whatever the reasons for getting us into war --the admin also told us the war would be over in a few months, Bush celebrated the end of hostilities while in a pilot suit, they said we´d be welcomed with flowers.....we didn´t secure the borders, we allowed looting of ammo dumps and precious historical artifacts from museums, we didn´t send the number of troops that the military requested,etc etc.....

[rushmc 18]

Not a bad idea.

On a side note I must be getting tired......... I am starting to look forward to your replies

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[b1jercat 0]

By the way OBL is still running around scott free. perhaps Bush didn't finish the job in Afghanistan.
Blues Jerry

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

By the way OBL is still running around scott free. perhaps Bush didn't finish the job in Afghanistan.
Blues Jerry

Yes, but it was Billy boy who actually let he run wild with his fantasies....

[billvon 2,435]

>Yes, but it was Billy boy who actually let he run wild with his fantasies....

Thank god there's someone to blame Bush's failures on! Both Clinton and Bush tried to kill the guy, but of course it's all Clinton's fault for failing.

[Wopelao 0]

Lol Bill, I always wondered why some here refer to some of your posts as non-sequitur.

That one exemplifies it..

Failure on Bush while he is actually trying? I know you are not to optimistic, but you will know that OBL is as free as he was 4 years ago, he has to hide.

What about failure on slick Willy for actually sitting back and doing something totally not related?

[billvon 2,435]

>Failure on Bush while he is actually trying?

Clinton tried and failed. No one died. Bush tried and failed. So far, over 2000 US troops have died. So far Clinton is doing better on ratio of terrorists killed to US soldiers killed.

>What about failure on slick Willy for actually sitting back and
>doing something totally not related?

An excellent diversion! Perhaps you could blame Ted Kennedy as well. 35 years ago, was he in Afghanistan hunting for him? No! He was driving some chick into a river. It's all his fault.

Here's an idea. Instead of coming up with excuses for Bush, why not discuss ways to actually _get_ the person who masterminded the killing of 3000 americans? What we're doing now isn't working.

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

Clinton tried and failed. No one died. Bush tried and failed. So far, over 2000 US troops have died. So far Clinton is doing better on ratio of terrorists killed to US soldiers killed.

You need to work on your fact checkings, as many died including troops. To name a few: USS Cole, Saudi Arabia building, US embassies. Including 9/11, and the prior attempt 8 years earlier at the WTC. What was Clinton's response?

A soft one, too busy defending himself from a sexual harrasment case, and an impeachment for lying under oath. (Of course we expect you use your "but the republicans were jealous because he was getting a BJ in office" line in here).


>What about failure on slick Willy for actually sitting back and
>doing something totally not related?

An excellent diversion! Perhaps you could blame Ted Kennedy as well. 35 years ago, was he in Afghanistan hunting for him? No! He was driving some chick into a river. It's all his fault.

Here's an idea. Instead of coming up with excuses for Bush, why not discuss ways to actually _get_ the person who masterminded the killing of 3000 americans? What we're doing now isn't working.