| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/12/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40951 Activity:insanely high |
12/9 "Use democracy to DEFEAT LIBERTY.
Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that
liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety,
leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of
wedlock, and family breakdown.
And worst of all, LIBERALISM is soft on communism or terrorism - (or
WHATEVER happens to be the enemy of the moment.)
And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their
SECURITY, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they
will gladly renounce it." -Irvine Kristol, father of Neoconservatism
\_ This is really dishonest. This is not a quote of Kristol as you
claimed. This is actually a quote of Shadia Drury from her essay
"Saving America--Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives". This is
not what Kristol said; this is Drury's spin on what Kristol said.
And then on top of misrepresenting the quote, you threw in some
extra capitalizations that were not in the source. Advocacy is one
thing, outright lying is quite another. You should be ashamed.
(http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html has the original
Drury essay.)
\_ I am not sure if I am ashamed, but I am glad to be set straight.
Serves me right for using a random partisan blog as a source.
\_ What? A partisan blog lied and misrepresented an opposing
view? I'm *SHOCKED*! Nay, I'm *SHOCKED*! *laugh* When you
get your info from shitty biased sources, of course you'll get
propaganda and be misled as to what other people have said
and think and you'll end up hating them. The motd is a great
example of this. BushCo lied, People died! Halliburton!
Damn, this is funny. I'm busting up.
\_ Actually, the motd is much better at correcting errors
than most media sources.
\_ You are right, Bush told the truth and no one has died
in Iraq. And Halliburton has not many any money from
War Profiteering. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan.
\_ BushCo lied, people died implies that Bush knew the
the true situtation in Iraq and chose to act anyway.
His knowledge of the true situation has not been
convincingly demonstrated.
\_ We know that he has lied about Congress having
"the same intelligence" that he did. We know that
he fired generals who told him planning requirements
that he didn't like, whose predictions have turned
out to come true. If Bush didn't lie, he was simply
incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
\_ Gee, isn't this pretty disingenuous? The fact
that the slogan is "BushCo lied..." says pretty
much that lying is worse.
\_ The word "lie" has more than one meaning, as anyone
with even a casual knowledge of the English language
knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,\
to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,
to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
it look the most extreme. You are being disingenous
yourself, to put it charitably.
\_ I'm surprised _your_ lie has been allow to sit
here unquestioned for so long. The common and
primary usage of the word "lie" is the one that
involves intentional and knowing deception. This
is *not* the "extreme" definition of the word
"lie". It is *the* definition of the word "lie".
Any other definitions you might like to use would
not only be uncommon but would lead to confusing
your audience if you didn't mean "intentional and
knowing deception". You are being extremely
intellectually dishonest. A 2 second dictionary
check would have shown that. So would asking any
normal human being on the street or any 5 year
old what they thought the word "lie" means.
You're just struggling to save the "Bush Lied,
People Died" rhetoric and doing a bad job of it.
Bush, the CIA, several other western intelligence
agencies, the Russians, and the entire Clinton
administration were wrong about WMD in Iraq.
None of these people lied, as we found out later
Saddam's own people were lying to him telling him
he had weapons and capabilities he didn't have.
The upper tiers of Iraqi government thought they
had WMD. Come play again anytime and bring a
dictionary or a 5 year old next time.
\_ Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to
D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. &
Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
Quite seriously, your English skills, as well
as your ability to use simple research tools,
such as a dictionary, must be seriously
deficient. In the English language, words
\_ You are an idiot. "dict lie" and look
for the definition that covers truth
and not physical position. You'll see
quite clearly that to lie means to
intentionally deceive. If this wasn't
the motd I'd be stunned that someone
would have the balls to present some
random fuck #2 definition from some
unknown place they've carefully chosen
to cover their first lie and then
falsely accuse someone else of having
poor research skills or English language
ability. If this was something as
low level as Rhetoric 1A you'd get an
"F" for an argument like that. But
since this is the motd, I expect lies
(intentional knowing falsehood) as a
weak attempt to bolster a weak partisan
position.
\_ The most amusing thing about your
diatribe is that this definition above
comes from using "dict lie" on soda.
Are you trolling in a deliberate
effort to look stupid?
often have multiple meanings and it is not
incorrect to use an alternate meaning, though
perhaps confusing to some people. I talked to
a linguist about this, and he says it is an
example of a "contested case" where some
people believe their definition is correct
and the other definitions are incorrect, but
a simple use of the dictionary will show you
to be wrong. The word "lie" is used both
ways in the English language. You also
(deliberately?) misread my simple statement
about your picking the definition that allowed
you to paint the users of it as political
extremists. I said nothing about the "extreme
definition" of the word, you either twisted
or misunderstood what I meant.
or misunderstood what I meant. Five year
olds don't define the language.
\_ So, in your opinion, did the OP of this
thread lie? Should he be ashamed of having
lied?
\_ Sure, he (me actually) lied, by some
definitions of the word. He should be
ashamed of doing only casual fact
checking, which in this case was
a Google search of the quote, which
turns up many other examples of people
spreading this falsehood.
\_ So you are ashamed for not having
fact checked, but not ashamed for
having lied. So in your mind, the
lie was morally neutral? Afterall,
if the lie were morally reprehensible,
shouldn't you feel shame? Would you
say that in your case, "you lied" is
equivalent to "you said something
incorrect because you believed in the
wrong source"?
\_ Yes. If it makes you feel any better
I personally have stopped using the
construct "Bush lied" because of the
confusion it engenders. I prefer
the phrase "Bush is a bullshitter"
because I think it more accurately
describes the relationship that
the Bush White House has with
veracity.
\_ Great! I must tell you (and I
assure you that I do so without
any sarcasm whatsoever) that I
admire your honesty and integrity
in this discussion. I think Bush
was wrong, premature, lacked
planning and foresight, and a
whole host of other unpleasant
things. However, I do not think
he lied (in the sense of the word
that is morally reprehensible and
requires an intent to deceive).
\_ Here are some examples of the second use of
the word:
http://csua.org/u/e96 (Kerry lied)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/101405D.html
http://csua.org/u/e97 (Bush lied about attack)
Now all of these are politically charged
debates, but they all accuse the other of
"lies" when falsehoods would have been a
more clear statement. But nonetheless,
they used the word "lie" as many many
speakers of the English language do in
this situation.
\_ Sure! In the sense that 'Bush lied' ==
'Bush was incorrect in a morally neutral
way because he believed in the wrong
source". I'm ok with that. However,
'BushCo was incorrect in a morally neutral
way because he believed in the wrong source,
people died' doesn't have that nice ring
to it. OBTW, at least in your first 2
references there is a sense that the "lie"
were told with the intent to deceive. In
the Kerry case, one could reasonably assume
that Kerry knew what he did during and after
the Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
that Kerry knew he did during and after the
Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
Kerry gave a "scrubbed" version of his
activities later. The 2nd reference claimed
the media was "inventing" stories. I think
by definition invention requires on the part
of the inventor knowledge that the story is
not true. In the last case, the question
hinges on whether Bush knew he was wrong
when he claimed that the Irqais were in
charge. This was not addressed in the
link (though honestly I have not read
through all the comments), and therefore it
is not clear where the article and the
claim of "Bush lied" falls. Thanks for
proving my point, BTW.
activities during his presidential campaign.
The 2nd reference claimed the media was
"inventing" stories. I think by definition
invention requires on the part of the
inventor the story is not based on actual
truth.
inventor knowledge that the story is not
true.
\_ Waitasec. Are you saying that you believe
that Bush looked at all the information
and drew an impartial and logical
conclusion? 'Cos looking at the intel
now, I don't see how he drew the
conclusions he did without having a
distinct bias. It is clear now that he
had already made up his mind and he was
only looking for intel that supported
his ideas, and the rest could go hang.
In this regard, he intentionally withheld
the truth of the matter from the
American people, which, by your own
definition, constitutes lying.
\_ Nope. I think Bush looked at the
information he had and drew a
conclusion. Did he look at all the
evidence impartially, dispassionately,
whatever? Not likely. Still he
reached a conclusion. He believed
that his conclusion was correct, and
he led the country into war based on
that. Which means he may have been
stupid, premature, illogical,
emotional, short-sided, etc., but he
emotional, short-sighted, etc., but he
did not lie. Did he withhold "the
truth"? What truth? There's his
truth, your truth, my truth. Maybe
there's even *the* truth. Who knows?
He told us what he believed was true.
If a child who just learned addition
told you earnestly that 7+8=13, did
the child lie? Or was he just honestly
wrong? If you write down the wrong
answer on a mid-term, did you lie?
Or were you just wrong?
\_ Do you think Bush told the truth?
\_ I think he told what he thought
was the truth.
\_ It is a yes or no question.
\_ Whose truth? Bush told
the truth as he understood
it.
\_ Bullshit.
"Iraq has weapons of
mass destruction" was
not a lie. "We have
evidence that Iraq
has weapons of mass
destruction" was, in
fact, a deliberate lie.
I think that Bush could
have stuck with the
first of these and
justified the war
(which I supported),
but he chose to lie
about the evidence,
and that is important
(impeachable, IMO).
\_ I take it that you
agree with my propo-
sition that if Bush
merely told the
truth as he under-
stood it, he did not
lie.
\_ Nope. Kerry repeated what he had been
told by other sources, that he believed.
It turned out that these guys weren't
even Vets, but Kerry had no way of
knowing that. The Kerry lied crowd knows
this but still accuse him of lying.
\_ If I may read between the lines, are
you saying the "Kerry lied" crowd
should not have accused him of lying?
If so, thanks for making my point for
me.
\_ I don't hold an opinion one way
or another on the morality of
accusing a politician of lying.
I am just pointing out to you how
the English language is used. I am
sure I could come up with hundreds
of examples, given enough time.
You could, too.
\_ Well, I am perfectly happy with
2 kinds of lie: one that is
honest mistake with no intent
to deceive, and the other that
is deliberately untrue with an
aim to deceive. I think there
is no moral stigma associated
with the first, and the second
is morally reprehensible. I
also think that, given these
two definitions of lie, Bush's
belong to the first category.
And, given there is no intent
to deceive, there is also no
moral probihition against it.
Like I said, I'm ok with the
formulation 'Bush lied' == 'Bush
was incorrect in a morally
neutral way because he believed
in the wrong source".
\_ I'd be more comfortable w/ 'Bush misled, people
bled' b/c lie specifically requires knowledge of
the truth. In this case, knowledge of the truth
has not, and likely cannot be, demonstrated.
bled.' To me lie specifically implies a knowledge
of the truth, which I do not think can be shown
in this context.
\_ 'misled'? What is this if not a euphemism
for 'lied'?
\_ Actually, no. "lied" requires the liar to
have knowledge of the truth, or at least
knowledge of the lack of the truth.
"misled" allows for mistake or ignorance
on the part of the misleading person. - !pp
"misled" allows for mistake on the part of
the misleading person. - !pp
\_ That would be 'mistaken.'
\_ Ummm no. Use 'misled' in a sentence.
Then use 'mistaken' in its place in
the same sentence.
\_ Clever, but not a direct substi-
tution. Instead of saying that the
President misled the people into
believing that the war was just,
I would say that the President was
mistaken in believing that the war
was just, and he therefore led us
into war while laboring under this
mistake. He misled us; in order to
do so, he engaged in deceit, also
called lying.
\_ No, you are wrong. A lie
is an untruth given with the
intent to deceive. Note that
it requires an intent. I would
not be lying to you if I told
you the sun rises in the west,
so long as I believe that to be
true. I may have been wrong
when I said the sun rises in
the west, but I did not lie,
because I did not intend to
deceive you with that untruth.
deceive you.
\_ And in that regard you
would have been *mistaken*,
and you would not have
_misled_ me so much as
_mistakenly led me to
believe_. Regardless of
which, Bush *chose* to
ignore every sign that his
intel and sources were not
correct and created an
environment in which any
evidence for an opposing view
was discarded out of hand.
When he said we had no choice
but to invade, he was imply-
ing that he had explored all
possibilities; that was a
lie. From that complexity
to "Bush lied, peoplde died"
is an unfortunate simplifi-
cation, I agree, but no
less true.
\_ An "unfortunate
siimplification"? Who's
into carefully chosen
euphemisms now?
\_ Pray tell, what is
"unfortunate simplifi-
cation" a carefully
chosen euphemism for?
\_ "Inaccurate"?
"Wrong"?
\_ If you look just one
paragraph down you will
see someone accused of
lying, who had no knowledge
that what he was saying was
false before he uttered it.
How can you ignore the
evidence right in front
of your eyes?
\_ An "unfortunate
siimplificatoin"? Who's
into carefully chosen
euphemisms now?
\_ Actually, this exactly
proves my point (and
it should, since I also
wrote that post). Since
the originator of the
thread posted in error
(or he was misled by his
partisan website, to use
the language of this
subthread), I did not
castigate him for "not
[being] ashamaed for
lying". I so stipulated
because to my mind, and
I assume to his (since
he is not ashamed) he
did not lie, since he
thought he posted a
truth. The OP was
merely mistaken. That is
why I took him to task
for not exercising his
critical judgement
instead.
\_ If you believed Kristol (or anyone in this media age) would
be stupid enough to have actually said this, then you should
be too stupid to be admitted to Cal. If you're not ashamed
for lying, then you should be ashamed for not exercising
your critical judgement.
\_ If Bush can say dumbass things like "What an impressive
crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call
you the elite, I call you my base" and get away with it,
it is not that unreasonable to think someone like Kristol
might say something like that. Especially many years
ago, before the Internet, when people tended to speak
more freely in front of crowds. Or maybe I am just
a dumbass.
\_ I actually found it very reasuring when Bush said that,
since that crowd will never allow the Religious Right
to totally destroy American science and turn America
into a theocracy. The rich bastard section of the GOP
seems like the least loathesome faction, and they keep
the real fuckers at bay.
\_ You are just a dumbass.
\_ I assume you are not the same fellow criticizing
the anti-war crowd for saying that Bush lied, right?
If so, it would be pretty ironic.
\_ There are many ways to make money other than real estate.
I made more than 100k in the stock market since 2002,
with about 30% annual return. And the PE ratio of S&P500
is actually lower now than in 2002, unlike the ridiculous
Price/Rent ratio of homes in the Bay Area. |
| 5/25 |
|
| evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html Shadia B Drury Saving America Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives By Shadia B Drury Shadia Drury gets to the bottom of neoconservatism. There is a growing awareness that a reclusive German migr philosopher i s the inspiration behind the reigning neoconservative ideology of the Re publican Party. Leo Strauss has long been a cult figure within the North American academy. And even though he had a profound antipathy to both l iberalism and democracy, his disciples have gone to great lengths to con ceal the fact. And for the most part they have succeeded -- as the artic le by James Atlas in The New York Times and the article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker indicate. This picture of Strauss as the great Americ an patriot, who was a lover of freedom and democracy is pure fabrication . The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secr ecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by soci ety - specially a liberal society - because liberal democracy is about a s far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it. Strauss's disciples have inherited a superiority complex as well as a per secution complex. They are convinced that they are the superior few who know the truth and are entitled to rule. But they are afraid to speak th e truth openly, lest they are persecuted by the vulgar many who do not w ish to be ruled by them. This explains why they are eager to misrepresen t the nature of Strauss's thought. They are afraid to reveal that Straus s was a critic of liberalism and democracy, lest he be regarded as an en emy of America. So, they wrap him in the American flag and pretend that he is a champion of liberal democracy for political reasons - their own quest for power. The result is that they run roughshod over truth as wel l as democracy. It should however be pointed out that being a critic of liberalism or dem ocracy or both does not make one automatically an enemy of America. On t he contrary, freedom and democracy can only be strengthened by intellect ually confronting their critics. It was for love of America that he wished to save her from her disastrous love affair with liberty , as I will explain. Strauss's preoccupation with secrecy was no doubt connected to the fact t hat he did not feel at home in America. He realised how much his ideas w ere at odds with America's liberal modernity. He felt that in America, e verything that does not fit the mould, everything that does not conform to public opinion, was ostracised. In a letter to a friend, Strauss comp lained that the academic atmosphere in America was oppressive, and that it was very difficult to publish. As a man forced to emigrate from his n ative Germany, learn a new language by watching television, and forced t o conduct his scholarly life in this newly acquired language, Strauss mu st be the subject of our sympathy. But Strauss's American disciples cont inue to complain that they are oppressed, beleaguered, and ostracised by the liberal academy, and the equally liberal media. The Straussians are the most powerful, the most organised, and the best-f unded scholars in Canada and the United States. They are the unequalled masters of right-wing think tanks, foundations, and corporate funding. A nd now they have the ear of the powerful in the White House. for he believed that intellectuals have an important role to play in politics. It was not prudent for them to rule directly because the masses are inclined to distrust them; but they sho uld certainly not pass up the opportunity to whisper in the ears of the powerful. Wha t is the impact of the Straussian philosophy on the powerful neoconserva tives? Strauss is not as obscure or as esoteric as his admirers pretend. The most fundamental theme is the distinction between the ancients and the moderns - a distinction that informs all his work. According to Strauss, ancient philosophers (s uch as Plato) were wise and wily, but modern philosophers (such as Locke and other liberals) were foolish and vulgar. The wise ancients thought that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty; and g iving them these sublime treasures was like throwing pearls before swine . Accordingly, they believed that society needs an elite of philosophers or intellectuals to manufacture "noble lies" for the consumption of the masses. Not surprisingly, the ancients had no use for democracy. Plato balked at the democratic idea that any Donald, Dick, or George was equal ly fit to rule. In contrast to the ancients, the moderns were the foolish lovers of truth and liberty; they believed in the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that human beings were born free and could be legitimately ruled only by their own consent. The ancients denied that there is any natural right to liberty. The natural human condition is not one of freedom, but of subordination. And in Strauss's estimation, they were right in thinking that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior - the master over the slave, t he husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. As to t he pursuit of happiness - what could the vulgar do with happiness except drink, gamble, and fornicate? Praising the wisdom of the ancients and condemning the folly of the moder ns was the whole point of Strauss's most famous book, Natural Right and History. The cover of the book sports the American Declaration of Indepe ndence. But the book is a celebration of nature - not the natural rights of man (as the appearance of the book would lead one to believe), but t he natural order of domination and subordination. In his book On Tyranny, Strauss referred to the right of the superior to rule as "the tyrannical teaching" of the ancients which must be kept sec ret. Strauss tells us that the tyran nical teaching must be kept secret for two reasons - to spare the people 's feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals. After all, the people are not likely to be favourably disposed to the fact that th ey are intended for subordination. But why should anyone object to the idea that in theory the good and wise should rule? The real answer lies in the nature of the rule of the wise as understood by Strauss. It meant tyranny is the literal sense, which is to say, rule in the absen ce of law, or rule by those who were above the law. Of course, Strauss b elieved that the wise would not abuse their power. On the contrary, they would give the people just what was commensurate with their needs and c apacities. Certainly, giving them freedom, hap piness, and prosperity is not the point. In Strauss's estimation, that w ould turn them into animals. Only weeping, worshippin g, and sacrificing could ennoble the masses. Religion and war - perpetua l war - would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumptio n and the pre-occupation with "creature comforts." Instead of personal h appiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation. Irving Kristol, a devoted follower of Strauss and father of neoconservati sm, was delighted with the popularity of the film Rambo. He thought it w as an indication that the people still love war; and that means that it will not be too difficult to lure them away from the animalistic pleasur es that liberal society offers. There is a strong asceticism at the hear t of the atheistic philosophy of Leo Strauss that explains why those wit h religious inclinations are attracted to it. Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terro rs of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. But S trauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his pos ition in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas , and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to av oid. It behoves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for p arliamentary democracy. He was impatient wit... |
| csua.org/u/e96 -> web.archive.org/web/20040719024432/http://www.kerrylied.com/ FRAME: MYTOPFRAME KerryLied.com Click here to enter http://hail.he.net/danger/kerrylied | Domain Name Registration and Domain Name Forwarding by mydomain.com - Register your domain name |
| www.techcentralstation.com/101405D.html claimed from the scene that "Yesterday the sun set on a scene of terror , chaos, confusion, anarchy, violence, rapes, murders, dead babies, dead people." "The inability to get people out of these h ospitals is frightening," he said. Could he have known false reporting from his own employer had contributed to this nightmare? was also halted because of uncon firmed reports of shooting at military helicopters. "We have suspended operations until they gain control of the Superdome," said the head of the ambulance service handling the evacuation of sick a nd injured people from the structure. He added that while the National G uard said it was sending 100 military police officers to gain control of the situation, "That's not enough . bo dy armor in terrific heat, which I know from experience slows you down i n those conditions. Regardless that they weren't really noshing on their neighbors, the last thing stranded residents needed was hampered rescue rs. Nagin also ordered virtually the entire police force to abandon searc h-and-rescue efforts in order to stop the non-existent "roving bands." famous statement that "the only thing we have t o fear is fear itself," was certainly an overgeneralization. But those t rusted to relay the most accurate information available as opposed to th e most grabbing must realize that fear can hurt and fear can kill. |
| csua.org/u/e97 -> thinkprogress.org/2005/12/01/embedded-time-reporter/ Media Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces primarily l ed the assault on the city of Tal Afar. The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent ant i-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last years assaul t in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition batta lions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army with six Ir aqi battalions supporting themThis year in Tal Afar, it was a very dif ferent story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing supp ort. TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the US troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson C ooper yesterday. He said Bushs description was completely untrue: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with a l Qaeda. They were being led by the US green b eret special forces with them. John Warner (R-VA) who was also on Anderson Cooper yesterday said I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credi ble description what youve just put forward. Full Transcript: COOPER: You know this is not one of the shows where we take sides. I rea lly try to just look at facts on the ground, and the President in his s peech talked about the battle of Tal Afar. And in his speech today, he said that it was led primarily by Iraqi security forces, eleven Iraqi b attalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. He us ed this as compared to the battle of Fallujah as an example of how much better the Iraqis are doing. Earlier, I talked to Time Magazines Mich ael Ware, the Baghdad bureau chief who was embedded during the entire b attle. I want to play you what he said about the Iraqi units he saw. WARE: I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I wa s with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were being led by the US g reen beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as a nd when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. COOPER: Do you think the president was correct in saying that this was a n Iraqi victory, that the Iraqis were leading the way? WARNER: Well, Ill let the commanders sort that out but I - first I resp ect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what youve just put forward. But you didnt hear him say t hey cut and run like they did in Fallujah. You didnt hear him say that the Iraqis dropped the arms. Now it may we ll have been that the battle plan was drawn up by the coalition forces, probably the US leading. I think were seeing some of it now with his poll numbers. But Ive got to say, in Europe, where the media is not slanted to the far right, theyve known all along just how much Bush lies, spins, and distorts. It is assumed that US special forces wil l be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force. Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq? Do you think things will go better if a Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean junta are in power in DC? Regime change in Washington Think Progress doesnt meat jack crap. Iraqis are going to still require our help and we should be proud of helping them. Stop continuing to sully our fellow citizens noble acts and the noble acts of the Iraqi people. The last time Bushs jury duty surfaced in news media accounts sparked controversy involving several questions on his juror questionnaire that were left blank, including a question about previous arrests. Bush was governor of Texas at the time and running for president. He managed to get excused from jury service, saying that, as governor, he might be asked to pardon the person on whose case he sat as juror. It later was revealed that Bush had been arrested for DWI in Maine in 1976, and the Democratic Travis County attorney at the time charged in several media outlets that he thought Bush used his position as governor to avoid having to answer potentially embarrassing questions about his past. There are no such probing questions on the basic McLennan County juror questionnaire. Lyle - leading implies, to me anyway, that the Iraqi army is develo ping battle plans, selecting targets, leading the assault with american troops supporting (most likely air power). While iraqi troops participating is a good thing, it seems pretty clear they arent leading anything. It hurt s the morale of our troops for the President to be shown to be a bald faced liar. I wish the liberal elite media would report all of the times that W hasnt lied to us. They are so fair and balanced that every time W is caught in a lie they remind us that somewhere in time a Democrat has lied too. Both lies cancel each other out people, so whats the big deal? It is assumed that US special forces wil l be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force. Why do you want us and the Iraqis to lose and suck in Iraq? Do you think things will go better if a Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean junta are in power in DC? Regime change in Washington Think Progress doesnt meat jack crap. Iraqis are going to still require our help and we should be proud of helping them. Stop continuing to sully our fellow citizens noble acts and the noble acts of the Iraqi people. Hes a passionate reporter and is not afraid to report the truth. Georgies been a liar since the day I first heard of him. He lies when its easy enough to check on it, and hes not smart enough to try and keep track of his lies. It hurt s the morale of our troops for the President to be shown to be a bald faced liar. I wish the liberal elite media would report all of the times that W hasnt lied to us. They are so fair and balanced that every time W is caught in a lie they remind us that somewhere in time a Democrat has lied too. Both lies cancel each other out people, so whats the big deal? The last time Bushs jury duty surfaced in news media accounts sparked controversy involving several questions on his juror questionnaire that were left blank, including a question about previous arrests. Bush was governor of Texas at the time and running for president. He managed to get excused from jury service, saying that, as governor, he might be asked to pardon the person on whose case he sat as juror. It later was revealed that Bush had been arrested for DWI in Maine in 1976, and the Democratic Travis County attorney at the time charged in several media outlets that he thought Bush used his position as governor to avoid having to answer potentially embarrassing questions about his past. There are no such probing questions on the basic McLennan County juror questionnaire. The war was declared officially over many many mont hs ago. Unless we have started a new war that I am not aware of? We are battling insurgents, but it is not DECLARED a war. Maybe you should get your facts right before you attach people. It is assumed that US special forces wil l be embedded themselves in Iraqi units for a while. What the President was that it was an Iraqi unit action, not an American unit action and not an action led by the American military. This WAS an Iraqi orchestrated event, with just American soldiers helping the Iraqi force. Comment by Lyle December 1, 2005 @ 11:12 am Rewriting things arent we Lyle? Its amazing to me that you rely more on your ability to read Dumbyas mind (since you claim to know what he really meant) than the eyewitness account of ... |