RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 2:58:50 PM

subtee

Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, so now I'm confused about what you are saying, because:

1. You say you know the difference between "intentional deception" and "mistaken beliefs" (or however I phrased it earlier).

Again you ask, do you really doubt that I do?

quote:

2. The Bush Administration made claims that WMD's existed in Iraq prior to the invasion,

Yes, they not only made the claims, they used those claims to paint Iraq as a threat requiring invasion.

quote:

3. After we invaded and found no massive WMD stockpiles, Bush admitted it.

The intel was not there before we invaded. Indeed the reporting from the UN inspectors (when they were allowed to inspect), was consistent--no WMD.
Two of the quotes of both Bush and Cheneys admissions as to what they knew are above. I'm sure there are many more from around the same time period (Oct 2004).

quote:

4. The article only looks at quotes prior to the invasion, before the facts were established.

I don't believe that it does only look at quotes prior to the invastion. The intelligence upon which a step toward instigation of war is predicated must be impeccable, it seems to me. I don't think Cheney or Wolfie or even Bush would like to adopt as reasoning for invading a country and deposing its sovereign...Ooopsie! If that were the case at that time, why didn't we then leave?

quote:

This somehow makes any Bush statements about Iraqi WMD's prior to the invasion "lies"?

Yes, it makes the statements--the often unequivocal statements they made about the existence of WMD in Iraq-- lies. Together with the disgusting but obviously quite effective linking of 911 to Iraq, all were lies perpetrated on a frightened American public to forward an agenda that had nothing to do with the stated goals. 935 Lies.

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 61

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 3:07:21 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Honsoku

How generous of you to totally ignore the point of my post and just go railing away. Familiarity with conspiracy theories does equate belief in them. Of course you had to edit my post down, because otherwise your reply looks asinine and pointlessly argumentative. Instead, you are counting on people not back checking what was written. So I shall repeat my last paragraph;

quote:

The point, which was rather missed, was that this fodder is just as good as most of the current allegations and accusations against the Bush administration. People will only develop conspiracy theories that support their own agendas. Besides, in any good conspiracy, the straightforward answer is the wrong one and there is no court worthy evidence to support it

But all you've done is weasel. You claimed and I quote "No one wanted to even consider the extremely suspicious and convenient deaths of Ron Brown and Vincent Foster." So I demanded some evidence that these deaths are suspicious. You twice responded with evasions.

Why should I quote your non responsive replies? I instead chose to twist your own bs against a beloved figure of the far right to show how absurd such claims truly are.

Your claim that these allegations are as good as fully documented facts proving the GWB administration lied to get us into war is of course so utterly absurd it wasn't worth replying to but since you've now chosen to repeat the absurd claim I will point out that I have provided a law written by the White House to authorize the invasion of Iraq which includes the lie that Iraq was involved in 9/11. So by your claim you have at least that much evidence to support your allegations as to the suspicious nature of Foster and Brown's deaths. Please provide that evidence.

(in reply to Honsoku)

Post #: 62

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 3:10:02 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

From your own source above:

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

I'll say it again ... it feeds your own biases to interpret this paragraph the way you are.

Pursue ... war on terror ... against international terrorists, and terror organizations ...

Simply put, the War in Iraq was a part of the efforts against terrorism that came out of the Congress after the events of 9/11. Both this source and the previous one talk about the origins of the fight as justification of the overall war, but nowhere in this, or any other official document does it say that "We are going to war with Iraq because they had a casual relationship with 9/11"

It similiar to the Young Girl-Old Woman Illusion, but with the mind.

I don't suspect we'll have much of a productive discussion on this issue. I am willing to say that I can see how you would arrive at your conclusion or interpretation. I could see how a reasonable individual could arrive at the same conclusion. Hell, you may even be right. But I'm willing to wait for a "smoking gun", because the "proof" can be easily seen a different way than you interpret it.

Are you willing to say the same?

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 63

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 3:36:14 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Leftists are going to START calling Reagan and Bush I murderers? Someone should look up what "start means". Leftists have been calling Reagan and Bush murderers for over 25 years.

(in reply to Honsoku)

Post #: 64

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 4:05:30 PM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

3. After we invaded and found no massive WMD stockpiles, Bush admitted it.

Two of the quotes of both Bush and Cheneys admissions as to what they knew are above. I'm sure there are many more from around the same time period (Oct 2004).

I do not know how this fact supports your position. In fact, it does just the opposite.

How is it wrong, or morally reprehensible that they said the truth of the facts as they knew them at the time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

4. The article only looks at quotes prior to the invasion, before the facts were established.

I don't believe that it does only look at quotes prior to the invastion.

It looks at quotes from a 24 month period: September 11, 2001 to September 11, 2003:

Over the past two and a half years, researchers at the Fund for Independence in Journalism have sought to document every public statement made by eight top Bush administration officials from September 11, 2001, to September 11, 2003, regarding (1) Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and (2) Iraq's links to Al Qaeda.

The invasion was in March 2003, so the statements reviewed were up until 7 months after the invasion.

Seems like about the time necessary for a decent search and intelligence gathering period to determine the facts. The statements you supplied where Bush admits not finding WMD's was in 2004.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

The intelligence upon which a step toward instigation of war is predicated must be impeccable, it seems to me.

Your opinion as a citizen is certainly valid as to the level of proof required for any government action - including combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

I don't think Cheney or Wolfie or even Bush would like to adopt as reasoning for invading a country and deposing its sovereign...Ooopsie! If that were the case at that time, why didn't we then leave?

Why didn't we then leave? Maybe because our invasion had caused turmoil, and we had a moral obligation to help improve things?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

This somehow makes any Bush statements about Iraqi WMD's prior to the invasion "lies"?

Yes, it makes the statements--the often unequivocal statements they made about the existence of WMD in Iraq-- lies. Together with the disgusting but obviously quite effective linking of 911 to Iraq, all were lies perpetrated on a frightened American public to forward an agenda that had nothing to do with the stated goals. 935 Lies.

...

The intel was not there before we invaded. Indeed the reporting from the UN inspectors (when they were allowed to inspect), was consistent--no WMD.

This is the key point of our discussion, I think.

Your (and the authors) assumption is that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.

Then, you "prove" it by quoting his words on the subject, where he states there are WMD's present in Iraq.

Therefore ... "proving" he knew there were no WMD's in Iraq and was lying?

There is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning in play here.

The authors make little or no effort to prove what he stated wasn't what he believed.

That's the only way you can possibly say "He lied" and for it to mean what you want it to mean.

You have to prove that there was an intentional attempt to totally misrepresent a fact ie. that Bush was aware that Iraq had no WMD's, beyond doubt, but then stated there were.

Claiming Bush's use of the Bully Pulpit as "lying" as has been used by most Presidents to garner political support isn't enough. We are a nation of advertisements and marketing, and should know how that works.

Firm

PS. A truism of government and bureaucracy: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 1/23/2008 4:10:37 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to subtee)

Post #: 65

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 4:15:37 PM

domiguy

Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Ok, so now I'm confused about what you are saying, because:

1. You say you know the difference between "intentional deception" and "mistaken beliefs" (or however I phrased it earlier).

2. The Bush Administration made claims that WMD's existed in Iraq prior to the invasion,

3. After we invaded and found no massive WMD stockpiles, Bush admitted it.

4. The article only looks at quotes prior to the invasion, before the facts were established.

This somehow makes any Bush statements about Iraqi WMD's prior to the invasion "lies"?

Firm

I find this type of an attitude rather repugnant.

The lies were regarding the stockpiling of wmd's and the ties of Saddam Hussein to al qaeda.

If my child died or was fucked up because of the fact that Bush relied much of his intelligence upon "curveball" whom the Germans said was unreliable at best ....I would be fucking pissed.

Who cares if after the fact if he admitted there were no WMD's? Do you get some sort of satisfaction from those remarks? Do you follow as to how the intelligence was gathered?

I find it to be close to criminal....How can you just throw away the lives, legs and arms of our soldiers without having concrete information as to the regards of whether WMD's were actually present? If anyone would have taken the time to research Curveballs' story they would have found all sorts of problems and contradictory information...You don't take this course of action if you have no regard for the truth and it supplies the perfect opportunity to fulfill your agenda.

Firm, before you start throwing around the fact that "bias" plays such a tremendous part in how we view the events and how they transpired, I suggest you do a better job of acquainting yourself with the facts....Those motherfuckers did everything in their power to obstruct the general public from finding the truth....WMD's and they did a great job of implying that Saddam was in bed with bin laden and al qaeda...All which were fabrications.

I don't mind someone taking pride in their party....When they have to hide their eyes from the truth to still have faith it really saddens me and belittles them. It just depends on how you view yourself?...How much shit you can swallow and still manage to float within your own definition of dignity.

I have lost a lot of respect for people who to still believe or still attempt to justify "the action." People who have been forced to take the remarkable stand of rationalizing what transpired in words and reasonings that were not utilized in the initial argument for war. It sucks to have to put yourself in this position! Don't we deserve better as a people?

Based upon what we were told and what we know now to be factual anyone who can still mange to justify this war is beyond reason.

_____________________________

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 66

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 4:22:31 PM

Honsoku

Posts: 422
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline

I replied with why the deaths are suspicious and you denounced it all as rumor. There is no degree of evidence that can't be questioned or undermined. What is it about what I said that you dispute? Who is evading who? How irreproachable does the "evidence" need to be? All the law that you provided proves was that they were using the "war on terror" as a reason to invade Iraq (which I already agreed with) and that they thought there was some link between Iraq and terrorism (which unless you know that they thought otherwise, can not be proven as a lie).

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 67

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 5:59:08 PM

subtee

Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

How is it wrong, or morally reprehensible that they said the truth of the facts as they knew them at the time?

How do you make that leap? Evidence seems to be pointing away from this assumption (huge assumption...huge, apologistic assumption), and has for a long time.

quote:

The invasion was in March 2003, so the statements reviewed were up until 7 months after the invasion.

Yes, as I said.:

quote:

I don't believe that it does only look at quotes prior to the invastion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

The intelligence upon which a step toward instigation of war is predicated must be impeccable, it seems to me.

quote:

Your opinion as a citizen is certainly valid as to the level of proof required for any government action - including combat.

Does this mean you don't agree? Or do you feel their intelligence was adequate? Or it doesn't matter?

quote:

Why didn't we then leave? Maybe because our invasion had caused turmoil, and we had a moral obligation to help improve things?

Um...here I just gotta say, "bwa hahahahahhahahahahaha!" Improve things? Did you type that with a straight face?

quote:

Then, you "prove" it by quoting his words on the subject, where he states there are WMD's present in Iraq.

Therefore ... "proving" he knew there were no WMD's in Iraq and was lying?

There is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning in play here.

The authors make little or no effort to prove what he stated wasn't what he believed.

That's the only way you can possibly say "He lied" and for it to mean what you want it to mean.

You have to prove that there was an intentional attempt to totally misrepresent a fact ie. that Bush was aware that Iraq had no WMD's, beyond doubt, but then stated there were.

[Emphasis added] This is exactly what the report does. It's called lies.

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 68

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/23/2008 6:03:11 PM

subtee

Posts: 5133
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Claiming Bush's use of the Bully Pulpit as "lying" as has been used by most Presidents to garner political support isn't enough. We are a nation of advertisements and marketing, and should know how that works.

Firm

Are you patting my pretty little head here?

quote:

PS. A truism of government and bureaucracy: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

Does this mean you think they just were that stupid? Curious...

_____________________________

Don't believe everything you think...

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 69

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 1:33:27 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

Domi,

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,"

I've seen enough politically motivated claims to have learned to reserve my biggest bits of skepticism for anyone who claims to "know" exactly what someone else believes.

I'm open to the possibility that Bush et al lied.

But there is certainly more than enough politically motivated attacks against him and his administration that are baseless, or based in the personal or political animus of the accuser that I certainly do not easily accept "someone's say so" without more convincing evidence.

There have been books and books and article after article published about the "illuminati" ruling the world as some sort of cabal, or about how green lizard men actually rule the world ... by people who truly believe it, and have "proof" that they cite with great vigor.

Some people read about it, and have a sympathetic reaction ... they want to believe ... and therefore accept the proof easily.

While perhaps not on the same order of "weirdness", the "Bush lied" belief is certainly in the same vein.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to domiguy)

Post #: 70

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 2:57:56 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

How is it wrong, or morally reprehensible that they said the truth of the facts as they knew them at the time?

How do you make that leap? Evidence seems to be pointing away from this assumption (huge assumption...huge, apologistic assumption), and has for a long time.

What assumption?

According to your own sources and words, after the war, after the time necessary to determine that no WMD's were found, that Bush et al admitted the fact. Where is an assumption in this?

Before the war, they were (or reasonably could have been) operating on the knowledge made available to them by intelligence agencies. After the war, and the on-the-ground search, they operated on established facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

The intelligence upon which a step toward instigation of war is predicated must be impeccable, it seems to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

Your opinion as a citizen is certainly valid as to the level of proof required for any government action - including combat.

Does this mean you don't agree? Or do you feel their intelligence was adequate? Or it doesn't matter?

It means that this is a separate discussion about what is adequate reasons for the use of force. Some people believe it is justified to allow a burgler to take everything from their house while their kids are home in bed. Others would use deadly force the second they found someone in their home without permission.

We can certain discuss the issue, but it's a distraction from my main point. Start a thread on the issue if you wish, and I might have the time to discuss it in detail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

Why didn't we then leave? Maybe because our invasion had caused turmoil, and we had a moral obligation to help improve things?

Um...here I just gotta say, "bwa hahahahahhahahahahaha!" Improve things? Did you type that with a straight face?

1. What price freedom?

2. Do you find it morally acceptable that the US to invade a nation, eliminate the government ... and then simply leave the mess behind without any effort to return a working government and society to the population?

Or, would you be part of the crowd that would be complaining about the US deserting it's responsibilities, if that is what we had done? Kinda a Catch-22, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Firm

Then, you "prove" it by quoting his words on the subject, where he states there are WMD's present in Iraq.

Therefore ... "proving" he knew there were no WMD's in Iraq and was lying?

There is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning in play here.

The authors make little or no effort to prove what he stated wasn't what he believed.

That's the only way you can possibly say "He lied" and for it to mean what you want it to mean.

You have to prove that there was an intentional attempt to totally misrepresent a fact ie. that Bush was aware that Iraq had no WMD's, beyond doubt, but then stated there were.

[Emphasis added] This is exactly what the report does. It's called lies.

This response again assumes prior knowledge of what, exactly, Bush believed prior to the war, and prior to the failed search for WMD's.

I think this is a good example of outcome bias, as I mentioned before.

I've already identified our disagreement here as being the Administration's actual knowledge of WMD's in Iraq. You and the authors believe that it is self-evident that Bush was operating with full knowledge and understanding that no such WMD's existed, therefore, any claim to the contrary is by definition a "lie".

My position is that this is an unproven assumption, therefore not a "lie", but a mistaken belief (you did say you knew the difference).

I am willing to keep an open mind on the subject. Are you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Claiming Bush's use of the Bully Pulpit as "lying" as has been used by most Presidents to garner political support isn't enough. We are a nation of advertisements and marketing, and should know how that works.

Are you patting my pretty little head here?

No. And I don't see how you would even get that impression. I have been unrewardingly patient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

PS. A truism of government and bureaucracy: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

Does this mean you think they just were that stupid? Curious...

No. It means that a large bureaucracy such as the US government, including (especially including) the intelligence agencies, along with the governments and bureaucracies of the other nations which were involved (including Saddam's Iraq) are often seen by many as a "rational actor" when in truth, most times things just kinda lumber along, and are subject to the normal human irrationalities and inconsistencies.

What's amazing is that we (human beings in large organizations) ever get anything done, not that sometimes, things get confused.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to subtee)

Post #: 71

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 5:15:38 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Your (and the authors) assumption is that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.

That, or that he had REASON TO BELIEVE the statements he was making weren't fully trustworthy and NEGLIGENTLY did not disclose those caveats.

e.g: D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

To avoid legal sanction for that negligence, he would have to have disclosed the IAEA didn't actually write the report to which he was referring.

Ok, that's a bad example, because it's a total falsehood, but I think the idea is clear.

Think about how and why the Enron guys got prosecuted --- it's essentially the same pattern of fraud.

Half-truths count as lies, when you get to court.

A better example would be this:

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

< Message edited by farglebargle -- 1/24/2008 5:38:59 AM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 72

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 5:37:27 AM

subrob1967

Posts: 4591
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Why do people always forget and ignore the fact that 7500 military personnel died under Clinton's presidency?

You accuse Bush of lying, distorting the facts, crimes...etc etc etc. But turn that blind partisan eye toward the previous administration, the deaths it caused, the lies they told, the crimes they committed...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat.

< Message edited by subrob1967 -- 1/24/2008 5:38:01 AM >

(in reply to farglebargle)

Post #: 73

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 5:43:01 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Why do people always forget and ignore the fact that 7500 military personnel died under Clinton's presidency?

You accuse Bush of lying, distorting the facts, crimes...etc etc etc. But turn that blind partisan eye toward the previous administration, the deaths it caused, the lies they told, the crimes they committed...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat.

The Clinton Administration is HISTORY, however, if you feel that prosecutable crimes were committed by Clinton, and that the Statute O Limitations hasn't run out, you should certainly be promoting the adjudication of those crimes.

However, attempting to EXCUSE the *CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS ***ONGOING*** * alleged violations of Federal Criminal Law by pointing to "Wet-Dick-Bill" and blubbering "bu-bu-bu-bu-Clinton! Bill Clinton! Clinton!" just isn't going to cut it.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to subrob1967)

Post #: 74

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 5:47:37 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Why do people always forget and ignore the fact that 7500 military personnel died under Clinton's presidency?

You accuse Bush of lying, distorting the facts, crimes...etc etc etc. But turn that blind partisan eye toward the previous administration, the deaths it caused, the lies they told, the crimes they committed...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat.

The Clinton Administration is HISTORY, however, if you feel that prosecutable crimes were committed by Clinton, and that the Statute O Limitations hasn't run out, you should certainly be promoting the adjudication of those crimes.

However, attempting to EXCUSE the *CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS ***ONGOING*** * alleged violations of Federal Criminal Law by pointing to "Wet-Dick-Bill" and blubbering "bu-bu-bu-bu-Clinton! Bill Clinton! Clinton!" just isn't going to cut it.

Subrob is simply pointing out that many complain about Bush, but accept similar "failings" from a ideological "friendly" administration.

It plays both ways, on either side of the ideological divide.

But refusing to recognizing it ....

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to farglebargle)

Post #: 75

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 6:19:53 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Why do people always forget and ignore the fact that 7500 military personnel died under Clinton's presidency?

You accuse Bush of lying, distorting the facts, crimes...etc etc etc. But turn that blind partisan eye toward the previous administration, the deaths it caused, the lies they told, the crimes they committed...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat.

Did you happen to checkthe source of this little claim? Here it is:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

Now what jumps out from this? For me two little details.

1) From 1993 to 2000 (The Clinton administration) how many deaths does the Pentagon attribute to enemy action? 1.

2) From 2001 to 2006 (the first 6 years of the Bush administration) how many deaths does the Pentagon attribute to enemy action? 2603.

I will also note that looking over the chart another detail is striking, all the other death causes except terrorism are up significantly during the Bush administration even though troop levels have only gone up a small amount. The suicide rate is a particular concern from this chart.

Oh and BTW the total for your beloved Bush administration is 8989 deaths in only 6 years. That extrapolates out to 11,985 deaths over 8 years. So that is likely 4500 more service men deaths over 8 years than occured during the 8 year Clinton administration.

So who exactly is the hypocrite?

BTW this sort of attempt to twist facts to make Bush look good is sure not helping the case that Bush and his supporters did not lie.

(in reply to subrob1967)

Post #: 76

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 8:18:22 AM

farglebargle

Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Why do people always forget and ignore the fact that 7500 military personnel died under Clinton's presidency?

You accuse Bush of lying, distorting the facts, crimes...etc etc etc. But turn that blind partisan eye toward the previous administration, the deaths it caused, the lies they told, the crimes they committed...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat.

The Clinton Administration is HISTORY, however, if you feel that prosecutable crimes were committed by Clinton, and that the Statute O Limitations hasn't run out, you should certainly be promoting the adjudication of those crimes.

However, attempting to EXCUSE the *CURRENT ADMINISTRATIONS ***ONGOING*** * alleged violations of Federal Criminal Law by pointing to "Wet-Dick-Bill" and blubbering "bu-bu-bu-bu-Clinton! Bill Clinton! Clinton!" just isn't going to cut it.

Subrob is simply pointing out that many complain about Bush, but accept similar "failings" from a ideological "friendly" administration.

It plays both ways, on either side of the ideological divide.

But refusing to recognizing it ....

Firm

Refusing to recognize what? I recognized that there could be prosecutable offenses outstanding against Clinton, and advised anyone whining about them to do whatever they can to advocate for their adjudication.

Go rewatch The Daily Show from Clinton's tenure. The evidence contradicts the hypothesis that Clinton got any sort of white-glove treatment during his administration.

But again, pointing to YOUR FAILURE to prosecute Clinton for whatever ( in addition to the impeachment, I guess ) as justification to ignore current and ongoing violations of the law seems "Soft On Crime" to me, and in direct violation of the principles of a Nation Under The Law, Equal Protection and Due Process..

< Message edited by farglebargle -- 1/24/2008 8:21:02 AM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 77

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 8:51:47 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

.............many complain about Bush, but accept similar "failings" from a ideological "friendly" administration.

It plays both ways, on either side of the ideological divide.

But refusing to recognizing it ....

.........the problem is that those on each 'side' fail to recognise that not everyone is also on a 'side'. Some of us just don't like incompetence, dishonesty or callousness in a politician. From whatever stripe of political opinion. However, when we point out deficiencies in one politician we are assumed to be defending their political opposite. This is not always true.
Aristolian logic is rarely useful for real world problems.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)

Post #: 78

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 8:59:28 AM

FirmhandKY

Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

Give it up fargle.

Not only are your interpretations about what much of the law means questionable, you seem to wish to personalize all perceived "political failures" on my (or whoever you are screaming at) doorstep.

Why not step up and take some responsibility yourself?

If you truly believe all the rhetoric you push here in the forums, why don't I see you name in the papers? You know, starting a citizen's action group, attempting to place civil and criminal charges against the politicians you so love to hate ... maybe even just a citizens' petition drive to ... dunno ... impeach Clinton for past crimes, and Bush for current ones?

But your constant, blind and baiting screaming of "Guilty! Guilty, Guilty!" really gets old.

I guess, what I'm saying in a nice enough way is .... if these are really your beliefs .... and you believe so strongly ... put up or shut up?

Absent that ... how about just listening to other's points of view occasionally. And, even if you disagree, actually consider how they arrive at their conclusions?

In this thread, you have totally missed subrob, and then my intent. You see the word "Clinton' in a discuss like this, and make all kinds of unwarranted assumptions.

Read closer.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to farglebargle)

Post #: 79

RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths - 1/24/2008 12:11:51 PM

Muttling

Posts: 1612
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Why do people always forget and ignore the fact that 7500 military personnel died under Clinton's presidency?

You accuse Bush of lying, distorting the facts, crimes...etc etc etc. But turn that blind partisan eye toward the previous administration, the deaths it caused, the lies they told, the crimes they committed...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Liberal Democrat.

Did you happen to checkthe source of this little claim? Here it is:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

Now what jumps out from this? For me two little details.

1) From 1993 to 2000 (The Clinton administration) how many deaths does the Pentagon attribute to enemy action? 1.

While the 7500 claim is certainly not accurate, neither is the claim of 1 death. We lost 45 soldiers in the mission to Somalia alone. 17 sailors died in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. I know there were several casualties in Bosnia as well, but the number is Googling up very easily.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 80

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: 935 lies: 3929 American deaths

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125