Yep. For you eyes only ...
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/guard_091404.html]Click For The Truth. [/url]
... and people say the media is not Liberal. Bah.
[ms] · Est. May 2002
Music madethis place,we just kept itgoing...
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
You Decide The Correct Document ...
40 durable postsStarted 2004-09-19Latest 2004-09-25
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
have to hand it to ya asdf... nice find. I pick the one on the left, looks very similar to the original document I inserted in the Air Force thread. Dan Rather can :Suck:
and fyi... Bob Woodward is asst. editor to the Washington Post. Author of "Plan of Attack." Published under a company owned and operated by CBS. I give him credit for foiling watergate... but he can also :Suck:
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
Does any of this actually prove anything? Nothing and no one has proved any documents were fake as of yet.
As for the media not being liberal-- it most certainly isn't. Try reading Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?" He dissects this issue quite well.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
i love you Liberals.
"After days of expressing confidence about the documents used in a 60 MINUTES report that raised new questions about President Bush's National Guard service, CBS News officials have grave doubts about the authenticity of the material, network officials said last night, the NEW YORK TIMES is reporting in Monday runs. Developing..."
Once again for your eyes .... [url]http://drudgereport.com/[/url]
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
It's good to be loved, isn't it? Drudge certainly never is wrong either, is he?
As for your documents--- even if they were fake, which I certainly don't think they are, the fact remains that the information claimed in them was completely factual, and no one has tried to claim otherwise.
Killian's secretary Marian Carr Knox claims the information contained in the reports is entirely correct. [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/14/184121/754[/url]
This convenient link reprints the Dallas Morning News article, which requires registration to read.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
The comments I hear from liberals are that Bush skipped his physical due to the fact that he went AWOL because he was out gettin railed everynight. All this does is prove he had an honest reason to be discharged from assignment because he went to Harvard law school to study politics. He still may have went AWOL, but those sigs do not compare. Honestly there is better ammunition available... such as the $200 billion pricetag on the war, but Kerry has chosen to overplay this one despite advice from peers.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
He disobeyed a [b]Direct Order [/b]by not taking his physical. This would be complete insubordination.
Whether he was getting mashed, or studying politics doesn't really matter-- the fact is he disobeyed a direct order given by his superior officer.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
Update : [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20guard.html?ei=5006&en=42f1be2f0a0efa9d&ex=1096344000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=]CLICK ME. [/url]
OK, so CBS got hoodwinked. If you believe President Bush, he did, too -- regarding the information that led us to war in Iraq.
Which, I ask you, is the more grave error? Running a forged document which appears to reflect the actual facts of the situation, or leading a country into war based upon bad intel? I'm certain heads will roll at CBS over this -- Bush's cronies, by contrast, have received kudos from the President for their outstanding work, including Tenet, who stepped down, purportedly for other reasons.
If you want to bash CBS for not checking their sources or running off half-cocked, that's a completely legitimate criticism -- but let's keep this in perspective and try to be consistent...
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
Toast Muffin ...
CBS is a liberal media ... they only wanted to blast Bush for anything they could. There were no other intentions except negative influence.
Bush is the Nation's leader ... he did what he thought was best at the given moment and time. He was told by many reliable sources about the intel in Iraq, from Putin, to Interpol, and the sources within this countries borders. That is a lot of pressure to have on your shoulders, esp if you reflect on 9-11. If I were a Pres, I would do EVERYTHING to prevent that kind of horrific occurrence.
It is too late to reflect on upon if it was a good choice or bad, but the only truth to the matter is history will lay the final verdict on Iraq. I hope in my heart it was a good choice, for a lot of people have died and to have their deaths be worthless is just not acceptable.
That is my perspective my friend.
: UPDATE :
EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question?and their source?vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where?if I knew then what I know now?I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
surprised to think dusty old CBS is liberal to begin with, let alone dan rather.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
The whole documents flap is a red herring, or a canard as it were. It really doesn't make any difference if the documents are real or not-- the fact is what was contained within them is without a doubt the truth.
The basic fact of the matter is, that old Georgie disobeyed a direct order by not taking his physical. We still don't know why he didn't take that physical, but there are certainly plenty of assumptions.
Eric Boehlert at Salon writes up an excellent article on the whole subject, and I'd just love to hear any conservatives attempt to wriggle out of what it says.
[url]http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index.html[/url]
Unfortunately, reading Salon requires viewing a short commercial.
bad night of hazing at the barracks, that's what i'm guessing. dubya must've dropped the soap... [shudders]
[quote=toasty";p="50878]OK, so CBS got hoodwinked. If you believe President Bush, he did, too -- regarding the information that led us to war in Iraq.
Which, I ask you, is the more grave error? Running a forged document which appears to reflect the actual facts of the situation, or leading a country into war based upon bad intel? [/quote]
The problem is that you liberals can't understand that the main reason to go to Iraq was not WMD's, but rather to avoid an imminent threat(Bush stated this repeatedly before the war). Furthermore, the fact that none of you can grasp the notion that to ultimately stop terrorism the political and social situation in the greater Middle East has to change is both sad and dangerous. Iraq was the most vulnerable and logical place to start. Remember, Saddam had already violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Liberals like to talk a lot and do very little. You'd rather keep your blinders on and pretend that if we just leave everyone alone they will like us. When will you understand the realities of the world? I don't like war either, but the truth is that much of the world is shaped by force, always has and always will be.
In regards to CBS, to try and slander a sitting U.S. President with fake documents is totally unethical and verges on treason.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
[quote=LobsterClan";p="51220]It really doesn't make any difference if the documents are real or not-- the fact is what was contained within them is without a doubt the truth. [/quote]
wow....this is just scary.
:ShootMe: <----YOUR BRAIN IS HERE[quote=acmatos";p="51445] The problem is that you liberals can't understand that the main reason to go to Iraq was not WMD's, but rather to avoid an imminent threat(Bush stated this repeatedly before the war). [/quote]
Imminent threat? Uh, that was certainly a rationale that was given at one time. It was also a rationale that was ultimately discarded by the Bush administration. Remember when Rumsfeld got tripped up on this point on "Face the Nation?" There's a link to the footage below.
[url]http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/RUMSFELDDENY4.WMV[/url]
I agree with you as to some of the other things you've said in principle -- sometimes, you need to go in and get rid of a regime because you do. Why can't the adminstration be honest about that? The rationale for this war has changed so many times, I don't even know if anyone can say what the current position of the adminstration is -- it appears to be, "the world is a better place without Saddam." If Bush had said that before we went in to Iraq, he wouldn't have near the problems that he has.
One thing is certain, however -- the administration has long since backed away from the "imminent threat" rationale it relied upon for some time. Why do you continue to cling to it?
[quote="acmatos";p="51445"][quote=toasty";p="50878]
In regards to CBS, to try and slander a sitting U.S. President with fake documents is totally unethical and verges on treason.[/quote]
Oh yeah, that sort of thing [i][b]never [/b][/i]happened while Clinton was president. And I bet you were really outraged when it did.
[quote=LobsterClan";p="51822] [quote=toasty";p="50878]
In regards to CBS, to try and slander a sitting U.S. President with fake documents is totally unethical and verges on treason.[/quote]
Oh yeah, that sort of thing [i][b]never [/b][/i]happened while Clinton was president. And I bet you were really outraged when it did. [/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa dude -- I did [b]NOT[/b] write that. Please make sure you get the source right when you are quoting -- that was acmatos.
I'm on your side, remember? :)
[quote=toasty";p="51793] Imminent threat? Uh, that was certainly a rationale that was given at one time. It was also a rationale that was ultimately discarded by the Bush administration. Remember when Rumsfeld got tripped up on this point on "Face the Nation?" There's a link to the footage below.
[url]http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7bE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7d/RUMSFELDDENY4.WMV[/url]
I agree with you as to some of the other things you've said in principle -- sometimes, you need to go in and get rid of a regime because you do. Why can't the adminstration be honest about that? The rationale for this war has changed so many times, I don't even know if anyone can say what the current position of the adminstration is -- it appears to be, "the world is a better place without Saddam." If Bush had said that before we went in to Iraq, he wouldn't have near the problems that he has.
One thing is certain, however -- the administration has long since backed away from the "imminent threat" rationale it relied upon for some time. Why do you continue to cling to it?[/quote]
The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this. Anyway, that's not really that important. The problem is that the media has, for the last 18 months, changed what the administration had stated. The liberal media has been able to focus on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus(i.e. WMD's) Another thing, he can't just come out and say "we just had to get rid of his regime because we need to change the middle east" (even though he has said it less harshly). Whether we like it or not we do have "allies" in the middle east who can help or impede our mission there. Some of them are already worried that they will be the next to fall(this is another important reason fo going into Iraq, keeping them in check!). And, unless we really want to go to war with the entire Middle East this has to be handled carefully. Also, our military runs on oil, without it we're screwed.
[quote=LobsterClan";p="51822] Oh yeah, that sort of thing [i][b]never [/b][/i]happened while Clinton was president. And I bet you were really outraged when it did.[/quote]
Give me one situation during the Clinton years that parallel's the CBS story.
[quote=acmatos";p="51873] The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this.[/quote]
Revisionist history. Look back at what was actually said, not what the Bush administration has said about what they said since they said it.
[quote=acmatos";p="51873]The problem is that the media has, for the last 18 months, changed what the administration had stated. The liberal media has been able to focus on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus(i.e. WMD's) [/quote]
This is such an incredible cop-out. Conservatives feel the need to villianize the media any time things don't go their way, yet praise it when it suits their interests. There is liberal media. There is conservative media. There is objective media. No matter what type of spin you want on a story, it is there if you look for it. Get over it.
[quote=toasty";p="52015]
Revisionist history. Look back at what was actually said, not what the Bush administration has said about what they said since they said it. [/quote]
I'm no revisionist, my friend. I don't have to look back, I was paying attention the first time.
[quote=toasty";p="52015] This is such an incredible cop-out. Conservatives feel the need to villianize the media any time things don't go their way, yet praise it when it suits their interests. There is liberal media. There is conservative media. There is objective media. No matter what type of spin you want on a story, it is there if you look for it. Get over it.[/quote]
This is not a cop-out, I'm merely pointing out what has been going on for some time. Indeed the liberal media has been doing its dirty deeds for over 20 years. Trust me, I'm over it! Actually, the media is starting to change right now which is a good thing. 10 years ago, CBS would have gotten away scott free with what they did. As you said, now there really is media on all sides of the political spectrum. This is good, it keeps everyone honest.
Still...as a good liberal, you focused in on the least important points of my post. Since you couldn''t challenge my other points intellectually, you had to disagree with me one way or another. lol.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
[quote=acmatos";p="51447] wow....this is just scary.
:ShootMe: <----YOUR BRAIN IS HERE[/quote]
:CrackUp: :CrackUp:
[quote=acmatos";p="52433] Still...as a good liberal, you focused in on the least important points of my post. Since you couldn''t challenge my other points intellectually, you had to disagree with me one way or another. lol.[/quote]
Yeah, you're right, I backed off because you clearly have the upper hand here. If you'll look back at my other posts in this forum, you'll note that I have a long history of avoiding intellectual discussion whenever possible. What a complete pussy I am.
:roll:
Seriously, I didn't find anything terribly objectionable with your substantive point. I did, however, take issue with some of the assumptions you state which presumably form the basis of your general world view and, accordingly, your political positions. Whether the fault lies in the foundations for your political analysis or the analysis itself, a fault is a fault, and the fruit borne from incorrect premises is as rotten as if it were the result of incorrect ideology or analysis.
Why is that an improper basis for challenge?
Ouch. Like a kick in the nuts Acmatos.
Yesterday I stumbled opun this book called ?Seeing like a state?, by James C. Scott. It is regarded as a standard work, which enlightens the reader about how a state works, and also the reasons of the failure of Western aid. I think by reading this, I just might find some good info which can help me find out why the war in Iraq was a good or a bad thing to do. I also have the book ?Third world politics? by B.C. Smith, which a must read if you want to understand some of the shit going on in 3rd world countries. And I?m pretty sure you?ll read things that are applicable to the Iraq situation: it places it in a historical perspective, hence my earlier made remark, that Iraq was still in a socio-political phase which may have changed by itself, when given the time.
The economical blockade was effective enough to keep Saddam from developing his military and becoming a real threat. So that was no argument IMO. Also, Blix wasn?t allowed to finish his inspections, and I can guess why. The fact that there were no WMD?s wasn?t supposed to come out, therefore destroying one of the prime arguments for invading Iraq. And one primary emotion in the Middle East was overlooked: they hated Saddam, but hey, they hated Europe and the US more.
Sorry, a little off topic, but I had to spill it.
Even though I?m no US citizen, I?m still watching your elections close, thankfully using the threads here to keep myself up-to-date. I can watch CNN here, and watch it almost all the time (I especially watch closely when the Hong Kong reporter Kristine du Stout is on, hehehe). Combined with BBC world, they form a great combination, and they seem fairly unbiased IMO. And comparison helps a great deal when in doubt. And when you want to see some really good programs on international topics, you gotta watch the Belgian channels. Those are the best when it comes to unbiased reporting. Better than BBC and CNN. My luck that I?m Dutch...
[quote=toasty";p="52687] Yeah, you're right, I backed off because you clearly have the upper hand here. If you'll look back at my other posts in this forum, you'll note that I have a long history of avoiding intellectual discussion whenever possible. What a complete pussy I am.
:roll:
Seriously, I didn't find anything terribly objectionable with your substantive point. I did, however, take issue with some of the assumptions you state which presumably form the basis of your general world view and, accordingly, your political positions. Whether the fault lies in the foundations for your political analysis or the analysis itself, a fault is a fault, and the fruit borne from incorrect premises is as rotten as if it were the result of incorrect ideology or analysis.
Why is that an improper basis for challenge?[/quote]
I knew that was going to happen when I posted. I wasn't implying that YOU were intellectually incapable of arguing the points, but merely that the points I was making were in many ways "common sense" type of stuff and can't really be countered intellectually.
Furthermore, stating that the media has a liberal bias is neither an assumption(this is very much factual. If you'd rather not believe it then that's on you) nor does it in any way form the basis of my political positions. HOW COULD IT???
You should really give up the pseudo-intellectual jargon and just go back to discussing things plainly. Now, lets both remember that this thread isn't about us personally.
:Cheerz:
[quote=Yao";p="52778]Ouch. Like a kick in the nuts Acmatos.[/quote]
I wonder if you really have any idea what he was saying.:?:
I did.
[quote=acmatos";p="52918] Furthermore, stating that the media has a liberal bias is neither an assumption(this is very much factual. If you'd rather not believe it then that's on you) nor does it in any way form the basis of my political positions. HOW COULD IT???[/quote]
Easy. Earlier, you defended your position that the real reason for the war is this concept of "imminent threat" in part by charging that the reason it would appear to be something else is that the liberal media has "changed what the administration had stated" and " focus[ed] on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus (i.e. WMD's)." I am assuming that you run the information you receive through your own personal filter that tells you whether or not it is trustworthy -- as we all do. This filter is created as a function of your own beliefs about the world around you; ergo, those underlying beliefs (i.e., the media is liberal and therefore can't be trusted, among others I'm sure) help you form your political positions (i.e., "Rumsfeld's words and the press be damned, the [b]real[/b] reason we went to war in Iraq was to prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat" :wink: ).
My response then, would be HOW COULD IT NOT? Of course the beliefs that we have in general mold our opinions on specific things.
To get back to my suggestion that cries of "liberal media" is a cop-out, I would note that contrary to what people on both sides of most issues would readily admit, there is loads of undeniably fact-based information out there that could be used to support or rebut any position. Frankly, accusing the media of being liberal and going on your merry way is not a particularly strong way to make your point and, on this board in particular, it is heavily overused. I see that, and I think to myself, "AND?"
[quote=acmatos";p="52918]You should really give up the pseudo-intellectual jargon and just go back to discussing things plainly. [/quote]
:NotMe: :unsure:
[quote=acmatos";p="52918]Now, lets both remember that this thread isn't about us personally.
:Cheerz:[/quote]
Didn't think that it was. No offense taken or intended.
:Cheerz: indeed
[quote=acmatos";p="51873] The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this. Anyway, that's not really that important. The problem is that the media has, for the last 18 months, changed what the administration had stated. The liberal media has been able to focus on certain aspects of the administration's position and project them as the primary focus(i.e. WMD's) Another thing, he can't just come out and say "we just had to get rid of his regime because we need to change the middle east" (even though he has said it less harshly). Whether we like it or not we do have "allies" in the middle east who can help or impede our mission there. Some of them are already worried that they will be the next to fall(this is another important reason fo going into Iraq, keeping them in check!). And, unless we really want to go to war with the entire Middle East this has to be handled carefully. Also, our military runs on oil, without it we're screwed.[/quote]
Acmatos, you have a few posts where you claim the WMD/Imminent threat argument was not our primary reason for going to war and the administration made this clear at the time leading up to the war. Others have put quotes in their posts to back up their position, yet you haven't. This is clearly a contrarian viewpoint. Even conservatives admit the stated reasons for going to war turned out not to be true, while at the same time saying it was worth it to get rid of Saddam.
If you're going to claim the administration was not using WMD/Imminent threats as the primary justification for war, but instead was saying "We need to take care of him BEFORE he becomes an imminent threat," then you better back it up with facts, quotes and articles. If you can't, then that part of your argument holds no water.
Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths: [url]http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970[/url]
The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify. You can say they did it for a noble cause, i.e. "We know the public and the rest of the world won't go along with it if we say he simply needs to be removed, so let's just push this 'threat' thing." And that may be a valid opinion. But at least have the cujones to admit that that's what happened, and you agree with it anyway.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
The point of all this is the fact that many liberal voices (not just Dan Rather) put their full support behind these documents and their legitimacy. Now they say that, even though the documents are fake, the info in them is valid. That assertion is based largely on hearsay, much of which comes from an ancient former secretary. I can't get over how Liberals are destroying their own credibility and public image: assaulting a young girl for having a Bush/Cheney flag, beating up a plainclothes police officer, starting drunken arguments on planes (scaring the hell out of the rest of the passengers). Granted, these are a scant few mishaps...HOWEVER, I am seeing a lot of downplaying and subject-changing from zealous Liberals when these topics come up.
Partisan politics in general are total bullshit. Is a lobotomy required when becoming a mouthpiece for an extremist political fallacy crusade?
true. it is really sad. I go to a very Liberal school (art school) and my golly to I have fight. In my English class ... the topic of Bush came up ... here I was alone listening to non-factual data being spit out by my brothers and sisters. bah. I fought and I fought hard ... not because I like Bush more, but because of truth and fact ... not lies and fiction. Typical day in a liberal school. I love my odds.
... I love Fridays ... let the games begin.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
[quote=Nekrolicious";p="53683] I can't get over how Liberals are destroying their own credibility and public image: assaulting a young girl for having a Bush/Cheney flag[/quote]
Uh, that was actually a Bush supporter, dressed as a Kerry supporter, that ripped the sign [b]out of his sister's hands[/b], creating this fracas:
[url]http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_atrios_archive.html#109542699935507535[/url]
as revealed by LobsterClan in an earlier thread on this topic: [url]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4265&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=15[/url]
Yeah, there are liberals out there that make all liberals look bad -- and there are conservatives that do the same. This just in...
I agree; the definition of the typical political partisan - Democrat or Republican - is "single-minded cheerleader." If you devote your efforts wholeheartedly to either "cause," you basically become another faceless, narrow minded pawn. If you want to think for yourself, don't pledge support to either group.
[quote=toasty";p="53015] This filter is created as a function of your own beliefs about the world around you; ergo, those underlying beliefs (i.e., the media is liberal and therefore can't be trusted, among others I'm sure) help you form your political positions. My response then, would be HOW COULD IT NOT? Of course the beliefs that we have in general mold our opinions on specific things.[/quote]
We definitely have filters that are based on our opinions and beliefs. However, how could the fact that the media is liberal in any way help form my political positions? The reason that I think the media is liberal is because I have ALREADY formed a political position, ergo, you're implication that this can in any way shape my thinking in completely ridiculous.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
[quote=timkell";p="53371]
Acmatos, you have a few posts where you claim the WMD/Imminent threat argument was not our primary reason for going to war and the administration made this clear at the time leading up to the war. Others have put quotes in their posts to back up their position, yet you haven't.
[/quote]
I like to deal with ideas. We can sit here all day posting links that will suit our arguments(even though you liberals will have a much easier time doing this :wink:) But, to actually argue your position coherently just in terms of the merits of the ideas and concepts themselves, now that's interesting. Nonetheless, I never said that the administration never used WMD's to justify war. I merely stated that it wasn't necessarily the main/only reason. Furthermore, I also said that the Admin used the imminent threat argument saying that we had to take out Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. You're actually combining two separate justifications and distorting the entire issue.
[quote=timkell";p="53371]The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify.[/quote] Wrong again. [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html[/url]
[quote=timkell";p="53371]Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths: [url]http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970[/url] [/quote] Yeah that's really unbiased stuff there! The whole article is bogus. If you actually read the quotes you'd realize that the words "imminent threat" are used only once by Secy. Rumsfeld when speaking about 9/11! The only other times that the phrase is used, it is out of quotation marks. Furthermore, many of those quotes are taken totally out of context and manipulated to fit the argument. Did you not make it past the title???
Just a little refresher on some of what President Bush has said: [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030220-1.html[/url]
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
[quote=acmatos";p="53963]I like to deal with ideas. We can sit here all day posting links that will suit our arguments(even though you liberals will have a much easier time doing this :wink:) But, to actually argue your position coherently just in terms of the merits of the ideas and concepts themselves, now that's interesting.[/quote]
What in hell does that mean? I ask you to back your "ideas" up with facts, and you say it's more interesting to talk a bunch of smack without facts? We're not talking about philosophy. We're talking about whether Bush exagerrated the truth and whether his PRIMARY reasons for going to war proved false. You still have not offered ONE fact to refute either of those things.
[quote=acmatos";p="53963]Nonetheless, I never said that the administration never used WMD's to justify war. I merely stated that it wasn't necessarily the main/only reason. Furthermore, I also said that the Admin used the imminent threat argument saying that we had to take out Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. You're actually combining two separate justifications and distorting the entire issue.[/quote]
No, I didn't say you said that either. Here's what I said you said: [quote=timkell";p="53371]If you're going to claim the administration was not using WMD/Imminent threats as the primary justification for war, but instead was saying "We need to take care of him BEFORE he becomes an imminent threat," then you better back it up with facts, quotes and articles. If you can't, then that part of your argument holds no water.[/quote]
And, here's what you said: [quote=acmatos";p="53963]The rationale was that we had to get rid of Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. The administration has continued to say this.[/quote]
Sounds pretty much exactly like you're still claiming. Way to sidestep my argument by pretending I was distorting yours. Still no evidence from you to back your "idea" up. We're waiting...
[quote=acmatos";p="53963][quote=timkell";p="53371]The fact is, the administration exagerrated the threat far beyond any facts they had available would justify.[/quote] Wrong again. [url]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/5/114239.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html[/url][/quote]
If you're going to use newsmax as a source, then I'm done with you. None of these article shows that, as Bush said in your article below: "the world knows that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"
[quote=acmatos";p="53963][quote=timkell";p="53371]Here's some nice quotes for ya. No liberal media. Just straight from the horses' mouths: [url]http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970[/url] [/quote] Yeah that's really unbiased stuff there! The whole article is bogus. If you actually read the quotes you'd realize that the words "imminent threat" are used only once by Secy. Rumsfeld when speaking about 9/11! The only other times that the phrase is used, it is out of quotation marks. Furthermore, many of those quotes are taken totally out of context and manipulated to fit the argument. Did you not make it past the title??? [/quote]
Quotes CAN be taken out of context. But they CAN'T be manipulated. They're quotes.
The link contains one paragraph, followed by 31 quotes from administration personnel. Where is the bias? Can you please explain the difference between "imminent threat" and "much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined" and "grave threat " and "threat of unique urgency" and "serious and growing threat" and "real and dangerous threat", etc. etc. etc.?
[quote=acmatos";p="53963]Just a little refresher on some of what President Bush has said: [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030220-1.html[/url][/quote]
Right from your link: "After Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council, the world knows that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction"
Where are they?
"And therefore, this nation must also confront not only shadowy terrorist networks, but the gravest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming to threaten the peace with weapons of mass destruction."
This sentence is his primary justification for going. Yes, he mentions that there are other benefits, like freeing the Iraqi people. But that is an additional benefit, not the primary reason for war. The primary reason for going to war is to stop Husseing from using his WMDs.
None of those three links you sent show ANY evidence of WMDs in Iraq. They show evidence that Iraq sent scrap metal to Europe, which concerns the UN because "what else could they have gotten rid of?" Good question. That doesn't mean "we proved it!"
Now that I've completely wiped out all of your points, I can go to sleep now.
BTW, I think Kerry sucks too.
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
Sorry Newsmax isn't as credible as Americanprogress.org. :?
I actually was having a somewhat philosophical discussion with Toasty.
You're so intellectually dishonest and biased its sad. You're hopeless. Go to sleep.
[quote=acmatos";p="53937] We definitely have filters that are based on our opinions and beliefs. However, how could the fact that the media is liberal in any way help form my political positions? The reason that I think the media is liberal is because I have ALREADY formed a political position, ergo, you're implication that this can in any way shape my thinking in completely ridiculous.[/quote]
This may be splitting hairs here, but I would argue that you (and I, and everyone) have a political [b]ideology[/b] which helps you form specific [b]positions[/b] on political issues when run through the "filter" we've been bantering about, so it isn't that ridiculous. At this point, though, we're pretty much arguing semantics, which is an awfully silly thing to get worked up about, so I'll drop it at that...
Re: You Decide The Correct Document ...
[quote=acmatos";p="54406]Sorry Newsmax isn't as credible as Americanprogress.org. :?
I actually was having a somewhat philosophical discussion with Toasty.
You're so intellectually dishonest and biased its sad. You're hopeless. Go to sleep.[/quote]
You're so good at sidestepping issues, I think Bush would love to hire you! Give him a call!
The article from Amercianprogress.org is a collection of quotes. It's barely an article. You still haven't worked these quotes to fit into your "idea" of what the pres is saying.
Then you heap insults on me. How am I dishonest and biased? Show me instead of just stating it.
Oh wait. You can't. OK. Just keep on stating it then, and enjoy your world.