Then these people did too. (http://home.ripway.com/2004-6/124662/Door_sign.gif)
Bravo zulu Majesty. I wonder what the "Bush Lied" people on this forum will use to respond.
My immediate response would be:
If he lied, he's not fit to lead.
If he was just wrong then he (or some subordinates who should be fired) are incompetent, and thus not fit to lead.
The image stopped loading for me part way through the Hilary Clinton quote, so all I can really say specifically would be about Bill Clinton's: He says 'respond'. He does not define what response would be appropriate. In fact, given his actions during his presidency, its safe to say that his 'response' was not, and would not be, the same as Bush's.
I would also say: When are those quotes from? If, as I suspect, they were from before the first gulf war, then they are correct, accurate, valid, and reasonable. The first Gulf war was, so far as I can see, a perfectly justified one. The same comments do not apply to the second Guld war, which so far has shown fairly conclusively that Hussien was absolutely no thread to the West at all.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
If he lied, he's not fit to lead.
So what you're saying is that all of those people are unfit to lead?
You should read my whole post before you respond to it.
The bottom line is that bush did not lie.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
If he lied, he's not fit to lead.
I agree.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
If he was just wrong then he (or some subordinates who should be fired) are incompetent, and thus not fit to lead.
The subordinates should be fired, but I'm not sure that he should be. He's at least one level removed from everyone who produced intelligence; he didn't appoint the analysts.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 01, 2004, 08:11 PM
I would also say: When are those quotes from? If, as I suspect, they were from before the first gulf war, then they are correct, accurate, valid, and reasonable. The first Gulf war was, so far as I can see, a perfectly justified one. The same comments do not apply to the second Guld war, which so far has shown fairly conclusively that Hussien was absolutely no thread to the West at all.
There's a John Kerry quote at the bottom:
Quote
Why is Saddam(sic) Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? & According (sic) to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..."
Quoted from http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
Definitely after the first Gulf War.
In any case, John Kerry is apparrently ALSO unfit to lead by your standards (the one I disagreed with above). He looked at the
same intelligence Bush did.
I don't think Bush should resign or be fired if his subordinates messed up, even though he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in his administration - I wouldn't hold anyone soley accountable for such a massive failing of the system.
Anyway, that poster dates both those Clinton quotes to 1998 - that is after the first Gulf war, but plenty long enough before the current conflict to not really be relevant without a lot more context.
Quote from: Arta[vL] on November 01, 2004, 08:59 PM
I don't think Bush should resign or be fired if his subordinates messed up, even though he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in his administration - I wouldn't hold anyone soley accountable for such a massive failing of the system.
Especially because this was a cia 'screw up' and british intelligence was confirming our own.
Since I totally rock I made a If Bush Lied flash movie (http://www.clan-e1.net/trust/bushlies.swf) it has a lot more quotes and such than that image.
Please note, I doubt any of these politicians have ties to Halliburton so the 'war for oil' argument won't stick here. :)
It needs cool music :P
I suggest SymphonyX - Sea of Lies
Hah yea, I wanted to add some, but couldn't think of any :(
Edit: Hrm, downloading legally aquiring it now. I'll add it tommorow after I get home from working the polls if I have time. I'll also extend the time between scene transitions. Thanks for song suggestion, I've never heard it so I hope it fits. :)
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on November 01, 2004, 06:46 PM
Then these people did too. (http://home.ripway.com/2004-6/124662/Door_sign.gif)
That seems incorrect. Many of those statements are compatible with circumstances that are incompatible with Bush's.
#1: "If there's no response he'll be emboldened", seems like it could be accurate under virtually all circumstances. It would be a lie if there was no response and Saddam wasn't embolded. It doesn't say anything about what kind of response is required.
#2: "Intelligence reports show .... however, .... ", seems to have had some doubts about something (what else is that "however" doing there?), but probably trusted flawed intelligence too much anyway. Most of it sounds OK - it sounds likely that Saddam would increase his ability for warfare and try to develop nuclear weapons if left
unchecked, i.e. without the UN programs to check him.
#3: "Every day ... danger for the United States" - every day offers some danger to everyone. That's a safe statement to make. There's also a qualifier to the statement; it applies when Saddam is in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons and development of nuclear weapons. A good qualifier, since if he doesn't have those, the statement is still accurate. It becomes just a nop.
#4: " ... consequences ... if we fail to act", yes, failing to act would probably embolden Saddam. No statement of what "act" means, could imply increasing frequency of inspections.
#5: "confronting Iraq now would undermine", is arguing that going to war with Iraq won't make a future search for Al Qaeda impossible, that you can do both. Sounds reasonable. Why not? Maybe it'd undermine it a bit, but given enough money, you should be able to afford it.
#6: "according to intelligence, .... ", qualifies the statement correctly, meaning it's not a lie. He's not in the position of president, and responsible for the running of the country, so it's not his fault if intelligence if flawed.
#7: "Iraq or the world would be better off ...", sounds valid. Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam. Is it worth the costs? Hard to say. Was it right to get rid of him? Hard to say. Those are the real issues, and the quote doesn't speak about them.
Would the world be a better place without Bush? Certainly. Would it be right to assassinate him? Doubtful.
Quote from: Adron on November 02, 2004, 09:47 AM
Would the world be a better place without Bush? Certainly. Would it be right to assassinate him? Doubtful.
It doesn't matter if the world is better...only if America is better. That _is_ the point of the _American president_, after all.
If the world is better, America is better by implication.
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on November 02, 2004, 08:14 PM
Quote from: Adron on November 02, 2004, 09:47 AM
Would the world be a better place without Bush? Certainly. Would it be right to assassinate him? Doubtful.
It doesn't matter if the world is better...only if America is better. That _is_ the point of the _American president_, after all.
It does, actually, for the decision on whether to send a _Swedish_ assassin to take out Bush... (following the spirit of hunting down Iraqi leaders for the good of the world)
Updated with a longer time to read the quotes, music, and a larger filesize. :)
Edit: Now with a preloader.
Quote from: Adron on November 03, 2004, 04:57 AM
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on November 02, 2004, 08:14 PM
Quote from: Adron on November 02, 2004, 09:47 AM
Would the world be a better place without Bush? Certainly. Would it be right to assassinate him? Doubtful.
It doesn't matter if the world is better...only if America is better. That _is_ the point of the _American president_, after all.
It does, actually, for the decision on whether to send a _Swedish_ assassin to take out Bush... (following the spirit of hunting down Iraqi leaders for the good of the world)
I'm merely saying that the duty of the President of the United States is to the United States.
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on November 03, 2004, 06:17 PM
Updated with a longer time to read the quotes, music, and a larger filesize. :)
Edit: Now with a preloader.
GOOD STUFF!
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on November 03, 2004, 06:58 PM
Quote from: Adron on November 03, 2004, 04:57 AM
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on November 02, 2004, 08:14 PM
Quote from: Adron on November 02, 2004, 09:47 AM
Would the world be a better place without Bush? Certainly. Would it be right to assassinate him? Doubtful.
It doesn't matter if the world is better...only if America is better. That _is_ the point of the _American president_, after all.
It does, actually, for the decision on whether to send a _Swedish_ assassin to take out Bush... (following the spirit of hunting down Iraqi leaders for the good of the world)
I'm merely saying that the duty of the President of the United States is to the United States.
No, not at all... infact that's just silly.. because for the US to function, it needs the world.. we are not an independant nation, our econemy relies on others to function.
But without others we would be forced to and would be self sufficient.
The president should not worry about what the price of tea is in china. The market can handle all of the by its self. The last thing the president needs to be doing is pushing price ceilings and price floors and higher or new taxes through the legislature. We need to just get rid of government interfearence and let the market do its thing.
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on November 03, 2004, 06:58 PM
Quote from: Adron on November 03, 2004, 04:57 AM
Quote from: Banana fanna fo fanna on November 02, 2004, 08:14 PM
It doesn't matter if the world is better...only if America is better. That _is_ the point of the _American president_, after all.
It does, actually, for the decision on whether to send a _Swedish_ assassin to take out Bush... (following the spirit of hunting down Iraqi leaders for the good of the world)
I'm merely saying that the duty of the President of the United States is to the United States.
That's true, but in doing his duty he has to consider what is best. He has to be able to realize that some things that seem good to the United States will actually come out bad for the United States. If he doesn't, he may end up with jets flewn into buildings, American property blown up, or American people killed.
Compare it to business: Getting a good reputation is important. You may be able to score some quick cash by tricking your business partners. But then in a not too distant future, noone will be doing business with you. Or if you've gone too far in Russia, you'll feel the blast of that car bomb from the guy you pushed too far.