The move to remove Rush

[OriginalWheelman]

Where was Rush Limbaugh when Bush and fellow republicons and republirats were spending $10 billion a month on phantoms and terrorists in Iraq?

I'm not even going to get into this again. Read up on Iraq. The people wanted to go in, we went in, end of story. Blaming "Big Bad Bush" is fallacy.

Its hard to suggest that Bush's efforts have actually made us safe in this nation. Afterall, Slick Willie (William J Clinton), did absolutely nothing and no one flew any aircaraft into any build9ing. Was Rush Limbaugh blind or dead to the data of deficits below created by republicons?????????

We were far from terrorism free under Slick Willie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Mc ... /W...mbing

Don't forget that 9/11 was PLANNED while he was in office, so they couldn't have liked us too much then either.

http://www.cbo.gov

I think Obama was right to take on Rush Limbaugh. Time has come for reality to be the best friend of US Citizens.

Oppressing free speech and oppressing an opposing view are wrong. That is one of the founding principles of this country.

[Jacko3]

I'm not even going to get into this again. Read up on Iraq. The people wanted to go in, we went in, end of story. Blaming "Big Bad Bush" is fallacy.

We were far from terrorism free under Slick Willie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Mc ... /W...mbing

Don't forget that 9/11 was PLANNED while he was in office, so they couldn't have liked us too much then either.

Oppressing free speech and oppressing an opposing view are wrong. That is one of the founding principles of this country.

Once again I don't rely on speculation. Perhaps you may want to read this article to get a sense of Bush's ineptitude and failures in Iraq. Iraq was never a part of terrorism. Terrorism as we know it today, started sometime in 1967 but became a significant part of american life in 1978.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

If Bush, by his own admission, was unprepared for war, then why did he take this nation to war?

And then he tried to deceitfully persuade us that he was right for taking this nation to war. Read!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

How could bush argue that war was the only option to solve the crisis, when inf act, the US through UN sanctions had crippled Libya, after its early 80s terroist attack of Panam 103 over lockerbie, Scotland. Libya eventually gave up its terrorlst, and pledged to pay $2 billion in restitution to the victims of that attack. The ecojnomic costs of the embargo was far-reaching. The same could have happened to Iraq, without any problems as well.

Obama never sought to hinder anyone's free specch. That seems more like a Rush Limbaugh line than anything. Perhaps you may want to read this article of Rush's desire to see obama fail in office. Seems like schadenfreude is reigning suprem in Rush's world.http://content.usatoday.com/co...002/1

[OriginalWheelman]

Once again I don't rely on speculation. Perhaps you may want to read this article to get a sense of Bush's ineptitude and failures in Iraq. Iraq was never a part of terrorism.

Neither do I. Perhaps you should realize terrorism was not the main reason we went into Iraq.

Terrorism as we know it today, started sometime in 1967 but became a significant part of american life in 1978.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

So?

If Bush, by his own admission, was unprepared for war, then why did he take this nation to war?

He didn't. An authorization of military force voted on and passed by CONGRESS did.

And then he tried to deceitfully persuade us that he was right for taking this nation to war. Read!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

Whether the use of force in Iraq was right or wrong is and always will be a matter of personal opinion, as right and wrong are subjective to each individual.

How could bush argue that war was the only option to solve the crisis, when inf act, the US through UN sanctions had crippled Libya, after its early 80s terroist attack of Panam 103 over lockerbie, Scotland. Libya eventually gave up its terrorlst, and pledged to pay $2 billion in restitution to the victims of that attack. The ecojnomic costs of the embargo was far-reaching. The same could have happened to Iraq, without any problems as well.

Again, the history between the US an Iraq goes back a long way before Bush.And if you think there were "no problems" with Libya you haven;t been watching history much.

Obama never sought to hinder anyone's free specch. That seems more like a Rush Limbaugh line than anything. Perhaps you may want to read this article of Rush's desire to see obama fail in office. Seems like schadenfreude is reigning suprem in Rush's world.http://content.usatoday.com/co...002/1

Rush can say whatever he wants. He believes in an opposing system, and he hopes that this one, that he believes is flawed, will fail. I don't see a problem.

[Jacko3]

Neither do I. Perhaps you should realize terrorism was not the main reason we went into Iraq.

So?

He didn't. An authorization of military force voted on and passed by CONGRESS did.

Whether the use of force in Iraq was right or wrong is and always will be a matter of personal opinion, as right and wrong are subjective to each individual.

Again, the history between the US an Iraq goes back a long way before Bush.And if you think there were "no problems" with Libya you haven;t been watching history much.

Rush can say whatever he wants. He believes in an opposing system, and he hopes that this one, that he believes is flawed, will fail. I don't see a problem.

You have yet to produce a single compelling argument. More speculation! Congress does not authorize war that was not presented to them by the executive branch. Congress does not go out there looking for wars to authorize and fight. And based on the false intelligence provided to them by the executive branch of govt (Bush), congress voted accordingly. In hindsight, there was nothing they could do about it. Intelligence is a function of the executive branch. How else would congress have voted given 911????

Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were the reason why we went to Iraq. Chenney himself continued to make such false assertions. Read!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...N.htm

There is nothing subjective about using force in a war of choice versus a war of necessity. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I beleive morality has been preched by the republicons for ages in this nation, and when it comes to taking innocent life that had nothing to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, republicons throw morality under the bus????????? How and why????????????????????

I said terroism as we know it today---meaning contemporary idea of terrorism. The middle east as always been a region prone to militant resistance.

Simply opposing views blindly without a sound assessment, is what we consider political dogmatism---the very reason why the republicons lost this current election to democrats, and will continue to loose many more elections, if they do not change. Here is an advice from a republicon to the many republicons out there. I hope the advice is helpful.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpo....html

[OriginalWheelman]

Read this thread I have made plenty of arguments.

zer...strip

[OriginalWheelman]

And based on the false intelligence provided to them by the executive branch of govt (Bush)

What false evidence? Show me proof.

Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were the reason why we went to Iraq.

Funny that's not why COngress stated they voted for it.

Chenney himself continued to make such false assertions. Read!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...N.htm

Chenney said that Iraq had ties to terrorism, not that is why we went in.

There is nothing subjective about using force in a war of choice versus a war of necessity.

That also is not true. To soem people it its, to YOU it is not.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. I beleive morality has been preched by the republicons for ages in this nation, and when it comes to taking innocent life that had nothing to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, republicons throw morality under the bus????????? How and why????????????????????

I don't know what innocent lives you speak of.

I said terroism as we know it today---meaning contemporary idea of terrorism. The middle east as always been a region prone to militant resistance.

Again I ask, So what?

Simply opposing views blindly without a sound assessment, is what we consider political dogmatism---the very reason why the republicons lost this current election to democrats, and will continue to loose many more elections, if they do not change. Here is an advice from a republicon to the many republicons out there. I hope the advice is helpful.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpo....html

Do you have anything other than blogs (editorials) from CNN ( a known left leaning media outlet) to support your statements?

[Jacko3]

What false evidence? Show me proof.

Funny that's not why COngress stated they voted for it.

That also is not true. To soem people it its, to YOU it is not.

I don't know what innocent lives you speak of.

Again I ask, So what?

Do you have anything other than blogs (editorials) from CNN ( a known left leaning media outlet) to support your statements?

a supported argument is a sound argument. A vast majority of your coments are based on speculation, hearsay, innuendo, and all what not. Have you ever heard that a piece of loaf is better than no loaf of bread?????????

If you read the articles I have provided, you will get all the answers you seek. Except you have decidedly made up your mind to ignore the articles I provide you.

If you would like to share with us, tell us why the war in Iraq is a war of necessity????????? Of course, the war in Afghanistan is an examplar of a war of necessity and thus, it is credible.

"So what?" is not a sound response to any intellectual debate, whatsoever. Thats a term used in ideological debates. There is a difference between ideological debates and intellectual debates. Don't confuse both.

Let me laugh some more----

[Jacko3]

Read this thread I have made plenty of arguments.

zer...strip

Oh, I have read your arguments, and they have zero substance to them. Hot air!!! You think taking apart a person's sound judgement and well thought out discussions, gives you credibility?????????? Think again! I know a good argument when i see one.

[OriginalWheelman]

Oh, I have read your arguments, and they have zero substance to them. Hot air!!! You think taking apart a person's sound judgement and well thought out discussions, gives you credibility?????????? Think again! I know a good argument when i see one.

Hot air? I linked facts, data, and made arguments. You have posted partisan rhetoric and blogs!

[OriginalWheelman]

a supported argument is a sound argument.

I agree. The thing that makes me laugh is how you think your UNsupported one is.

A vast majority of your coments are based on speculation, hearsay, innuendo, and all what not. Have you ever heard that a piece of loaf is better than no loaf of bread?????????

My comments are based on fact and evidence.

If you read the articles I have provided, you will get all the answers you seek. Except you have decidedly made up your mind to ignore the articles I provide you.

What articles? You linked a bunch of blogs! Anyone can post ANYTHING in a blog.

If you would like to share with us, tell us why the war in Iraq is a war of necessity????????? Of course, the war in Afghanistan is an examplar of a war of necessity and thus, it is credible.

It wasn't. I was against it, but there were some sound, legitimate reasons for going in, that I have posted 3 times already. Oh why not, I'll post it a 4th time.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2] * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorlst organizations," including anti-United States terrorlst organizations. * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._1998

"So what?" is not a sound response to any intellectual debate, whatsoever. Thats a term used in ideological debates. There is a difference between ideological debates and intellectual debates. Don't confuse both.

I'm saying it is irrelevant. It has no place in this discussion.

Let me laugh some more----

Go ahead, it doesn;t make you right.

[Jacko3]

I agree. The thing that makes me laugh is how you think your UNsupported one is.

My comments are based on fact and evidence.

What articles? You linked a bunch of blogs! Anyone can post ANYTHING in a blog.

It wasn't. I was against it, but there were some sound, legitimate reasons for going in, that I have posted 3 times already. Oh why not, I'll post it a 4th time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._1998

I'm saying it is irrelevant. It has no place in this discussion.

Go ahead, it doesn;t make you right.

You are trying too hard. I gave you non-blog articles. And by the way, those blogs have actual hard reports and then reader responses. Then , you go again to present wikipedia, which can be altered by anyone on planet earth. At least the blogs I provided to you are controlled strictly by the largest news paper by circulation in the US.

We went to war with a UN mandate in 1991, did we do so in 2001??? And whose reasons are those you provide from wikipedia----tooth ferries reasons??????????

Amazingly, you have left the subject matter of this topic to focus on intangibles. It means, you have no real argument left in you. And, there is plenty where my evidence and comments come from. This isn't about being right or wrong. Its about setting the record straight, especially for all those who drink the Rush Limbaugh Kool Aide.

[OriginalWheelman]

And you continue to avoid giving me proof that GWB fabricated the war, as has every other person to claim it.

Furthermore, if the blogs are controlled by CNN / USA Today makes their creditability less, as it is one side that is being allowed to be portrayed. If the articles the blog links to make your point, why not link to an quote the articles, not the blogs?

The reasons provided int he wiki article are the reasons cited int he authorization of use of force voted on by congress. The very reasons congress justified the use of force.

[Jacko3]

And you continue to avoid giving me proof that GWB fabricated the war, as has every other person to claim it.

Furthermore, if the blogs are controlled by CNN / USA Today makes their creditability less, as it is one side that is being allowed to be portrayed. If the articles the blog links to make your point, why not link to an quote the articles, not the blogs?

The reasons provided int he wiki article are the reasons cited int he authorization of use of force voted on by congress. The very reasons congress justified the use of force.

And you continue to refuse to read and educate yourself with the articles I provided. I can't help you here, can I?

And since when di you become the judge of credible and non-credible articles???????????? So, is Faux News with Hannity, Comb, and O'Reilly, that much more credible to you????????????

Thos blogs are actual hard articles created by the journalists of USATODAY. They do hjave links in them if you cared enough to peruse the blogs. Again, in that list you provided, on item 2, it states, "Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons,........"

Where are the alleged weapons of mass destruction that was claimed in that list????????????? If no WMD was ever found in Iraq, then Bush went to war based on lies and deceit.

When you are done answering that question, go back to the article I provided to you in d!ck Chenney and read it again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...N.htm

And, oh please, this isn't a blog, and not that it matters.

[OriginalWheelman]

And you continue to refuse to read and educate yourself with the articles I provided. I can't help you here, can I?

I read them and still do not agree. Simply believing I didn;t read them because I don;t agree with you is narcissistic.

And since when di you become the judge of credible and non-credible articles???????????? So, is Faux News with Hannity, Comb, and O'Reilly, that much more credible to you????????????

I am nto the judge of credibility. I'm saying there is a difference between an article, where there is some liability for what has been said, as opposed to a blog where anyone can say whatever they feel. I'm not a Republican, stop treating me like I am simply because I disagree.

Thos blogs are actual hard articles created by the journalists of USATODAY. They do hjave links in them if you cared enough to peruse the blogs.

They do have links, but that was nto what you offered up as support. You offered the blogs, which I have already addressed why they are not credible.

Again, in that list you provided, on item 2, it states, "Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons,........"

Where are the alleged weapons of mass destruction that was claimed in that list????????????? If no WMD was ever found in Iraq, then Bush went to war based on lies and deceit.

On admission of the Bush administration no WMD were found. Which, in my opinion, takes credibility away from the conspiracy theories. IF Bush fabricated the war why would he not fabricate the evidence to justfy it?

Furthermore, a lie is an intentional statement of a falsehood as fact. Bush did not lie, our intel was wrong. Saddam had and used WMDs prior to the 91 conflict, and was refusing to allow inspectors access as they asked for it. This suggests that he had them.

When you are done answering that question, go back to the article I provided to you in d!ck Chenney and read it again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...N.htm

And, oh please, this isn't a blog, and not that it matters.

I read it. Did you read this?

Although Feith's assessment in mid-2002 offered several examples of cooperation between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda, the report said, the CIA had concluded months earlier that no evidence supported the existence of significant or long-term relationships.

"Offered several exapmles of cooperation between Saddams government and al-Qaeda" sounds an awful lot like "terrorists and those who aided or harbored them."

I don't see how any one lied here. While it seems the guy doing the reports did them with a bias, he did not do so illegally, as told by your own source. If he had fabricated evidence it would have been illegal. The documents were even declassified, yet no one has found evidence int hem that the war was fabricated. Intelligence work is listening to the worlds gossip and trying to decide what is really going on. Some people tell the truth, some people lie, some people tell you half the story or less. It is not an exact science. This is why we had "an intel failure" and why "we knew about 9/11 before it happened".

[Jacko3]

I read them and still do not agree. Simply believing I didn;t read them because I don;t agree with you is narcissistic.

I am nto the judge of credibility. I'm saying there is a difference between an article, where there is some liability for what has been said, as opposed to a blog where anyone can say whatever they feel. I'm not a Republican, stop treating me like I am simply because I disagree.

They do have links, but that was nto what you offered up as support. You offered the blogs, which I have already addressed why they are not credible.

On admission of the Bush administration no WMD were found. Which, in my opinion, takes credibility away from the conspiracy theories. IF Bush fabricated the war why would he not fabricate the evidence to justfy it?

Furthermore, a lie is an intentional statement of a falsehood as fact. Bush did not lie, our intel was wrong. Saddam had and used WMDs prior to the 91 conflict, and was refusing to allow inspectors access as they asked for it. This suggests that he had them.

I read it. Did you read this?

"Offered several exapmles of cooperation between Saddams government and al-Qaeda" sounds an awful lot like "terrorists and those who aided or harbored them."

I don't see how any one lied here. While it seems the guy doing the reports did them with a bias, he did not do so illegally, as told by your own source. If he had fabricated evidence it would have been illegal. The documents were even declassified, yet no one has found evidence int hem that the war was fabricated. Intelligence work is listening to the worlds gossip and trying to decide what is really going on. Some people tell the truth, some people lie, some people tell you half the story or less. It is not an exact science. This is why we had "an intel failure" and why "we knew about 9/11 before it happened".

Wow, it sure is fun to put you on the defensive.

You agreement with facts is irrelevant. It changes nothing. A person hearing voices in their heads will naturally tell you that they are perfectly fine. Who wouldn't???????????

There is a portion of the blog that is fact----information that cannot be changed by anyone but the news agency itself, and there is a portion that is open for reader's comments. And with solid links on those blogs, it does add to their credibility---they are not making stuff up.

Bush did not fabricate the war. He fabricated reasons for going to war. There is a difference here. And he could not possibly fabricate evidence because I am not sure how he wil be able to force our many troops on the ground to claim that they discovered WMD, when in fact, they didn't. That would be next to impossible, and so he is left with the allegations that he fabricated the reasons for the war in Iraq. As I earlier said and proved to you, while WMD was used as reason to go to war, no evidence of it was found after the war.

A lie does not have to be intentional---YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. It can also be unintentional. Lies can be conscious and sub-conscious as well. Deceit, misinformation, are all synonyms and forms of lying.

That Saddam had used Weapons of Mass Destruction, did not imply he had them. For all we know, he could have borrowed them from the North Koreans or Russians to test how potent they really were. Probably did not have any in stock, as Bush claimed. And rightly so, to the extent that the oil-for-food program sanction implemented byt he UN, was having a slow and deliberat eeffect of reducing Saddam's capability of spending money on weapon systems. Again, another reason why sanctions, not war, just as it had worked on Libya, would have also worked for Iraq.

Wow, you conclude so spuriously that the guy who did the report was biased, how so????????????

I gave you a link, that shows bush in his own words, claiming that he was unprepared for the war. if he was so unprepared, why then did he take this nation to war???????????? Can you answer that question????????? What was driving his decision to go to war, the inevitable mushroom clouds??????????????

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

[OriginalWheelman]

Bush did not fabricate the war. He fabricated reasons for going to war. There is a difference here.

PROVE IT. This is not a place for touting wild speculation as fact. Until you can prove GWB fabricated evidence, this is nothing more than lible.

And he could not possibly fabricate evidence because I am not sure how he wil be able to force our many troops on the ground to claim that they discovered WMD, when in fact, they didn't. That would be next to impossible, and so he is left with the allegations that he fabricated the reasons for the war in Iraq. As I earlier said and proved to you, while WMD was used as reason to go to war, no evidence of it was found after the war.

He can't fabricate because you're not sure? Money talks. I bet he could have paid enough people or rewarded them to get the stories out. Or have claimed "spec ops" found them This is as flimsy an argument as they come.

A lie does not have to be intentional---YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. It can also be unintentional. Lies can be conscious and sub-conscious as well. Deceit, misinformation, are all synonyms and forms of lying.

Who are you to make the definition of lying?

lie2 (lī) pronunciationn.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Lying IS intentional by definition.

That Saddam had used Weapons of Mass Destruction, did not imply he had them. For all we know, he could have borrowed them from the North Koreans or Russians to test how potent they really were. Probably did not have any in stock, as Bush claimed. And rightly so, to the extent that the oil-for-food program sanction implemented byt he UN, was having a slow and deliberat eeffect of reducing Saddam's capability of spending money on weapon systems. Again, another reason why sanctions, not war, just as it had worked on Libya, would have also worked for Iraq.

This is also speculation. Libya is cooperative, Iraq was never. Different situations.

Wow, you conclude so spuriously that the guy who did the report was biased, how so????????????

Because your article said so!

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had requested that the Pentagon declassify the report prepared by acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble. In a statement Thursday, Levin said the declassified document showed why a Defense Department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon prewar intelligence work was inappropriate.

The report, which had been released in summary form in February, said that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had acted inappropriately but not illegally in reviewing prewar intelligence. Levin has claimed that Feith's intelligence assessment was wrong and distorted but nevertheless formed part of the basis on which President Bush took the country to war.

I gave you a link, that shows bush in his own words, claiming that he was unprepared for the war. if he was so unprepared, why then did he take this nation to war???????????? Can you answer that question????????? What was driving his decision to go to war, the inevitable mushroom clouds??????????????

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onde...lskip

The motivation for war was probably the 64% public opinion IN FAVOR of the war. That's more of a % then voted for BHO, so you can't say it's insignificant to base such a decision on.

[Jacko3]

PROVE IT. This is not a place for touting wild speculation as fact. Until you can prove GWB fabricated evidence, this is nothing more than lible.

Who are you to make the definition of lying?

Lying IS intentional by definition.



The motivation for war was probably the 64% public opinion IN FAVOR of the war. That's more of a % then voted for BHO, so you can't say it's insignificant to base such a decision on.

You really have a lot to learn. Your definintion, said this about lies: "2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." No where does it suggest in this version of its definintions that a lie has to be intentional.

Infact, I had rightly said, "A lie does not have to be intentional.........It can also be unintentional. Lies can be conscious and sub-conscious as well. Deceit, misinformation, are all synonyms and forms of lying"

You proved me correct! Amazing! The more you argue, the more I have fun showing an unsustainable level of mediocrity in your comments. For your information, dictionaries are designed to provide as many variations and contexts of a specific word as possible. For example, being gay could mean being homosexual, as well as it could also mean being happy. Got it! I doubt it!

And by the way, intellectual curiosity and license allow people to create their own definitions of some words, without eliminating the true essence of that word. Have you ever heard of literary license before????????

Once again, you speculate about the motiviation for war. I have no idea what bush was thinking when he took us to war. But i do know from the articles I have presented, in his own words, that he was unprepared for the war. To me, this is as much a high degree of executive ,malfeseance and irresponsibility as any other. Over 4,000 troops of ours have died for the very level of lack of preparedness he had. To me, and as a right-thinking person, that is unacceptable. Anymore justifications????????

[Jacko3]

I am enjoying every minute of our banter. I love debates a lot. So, don't take anything I say personal. I have no problem apologizing to you, if you feel wronged. I may know a lot about these things, but I have no interest in crushing a rival, even if I was given the chance. Its called chivalry and respect for others.

[OriginalWheelman]

You really have a lot to learn. Your definintion, said this about lies: "2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression." No where does it suggest in this version of its definintions that a lie has to be intentional.Infact, I had rightly said, "A lie does not have to be intentional.........It can also be unintentional. Lies can be conscious and sub-conscious as well. Deceit, misinformation, are all synonyms and forms of lying"

You proved me correct! Amazing! The more you argue, the more I have fun showing an unsustainable level of mediocrity in your comments. For your information, dictionaries are designed to provide as many variations and contexts of a specific word as possible. For example, being gay could mean being homosexual, as well as it could also mean being happy. Got it! I doubt it!

You have a lot to learn. Yes it does. In order to deceive or give a wrong impression you must be trying to show them an untruth instead of a truth. How could you do this if you did not knwo there was an untruth? It IMPLIES intentional. You can't unintentionally deceive someone. You are still wrong. You simply fail to comprehend it.

And by the way, intellectual curiosity and license allow people to create their own definitions of some words, without eliminating the true essence of that word. Have you ever heard of literary license before????????

Literary license does not have a place in an arguement of fact. It is for prose.

Once again, you speculate about the motiviation for war.

You're the one speculating. I listed a concise list of reasons. You don't make sense.

I have no idea what bush was thinking when he took us to war.

Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were the reason why we went to Iraq.

Um....

But i do know from the articles I have presented, in his own words, that he was unprepared for the war. To me, this is as much a high degree of executive ,malfeseance and irresponsibility as any other.

Over 4,000 troops of ours have died for the very level of lack of preparedness he had. To me, and as a right-thinking person, that is unacceptable.

Troops died because they are being shot at. No amount of preparedness will let you have a war without deaths. Can you in retrospect, as Bush was speaking in that article, say that you were nto prepared for soemthing? We as humans make the best decisions we can at the tiem with the information at hand. A very old sayings says "Hindsight is always 20/20." It was in hindsight that he realized he was unprepared, and it takes a good deal of maturity to even admit that. Never has Bush said "I was unprepared when we went into Iraq and I knew it then."

Furthermore, As far as wars go, this one was run with the lowest casualty rate of any war we have been in, which is a testament to how well our military is organized. Pick an island, any random island from WW2 and more than likely more Americans died on that 1 island than in all of the 2003 Iraq campaign.

[OriginalWheelman]

I am enjoying every minute of our banter. I love debates a lot. So, don't take anything I say personal. I have no problem apologizing to you, if you feel wronged. I may know a lot about these things, but I have no interest in crushing a rival, even if I was given the chance. Its called chivalry and respect for others.

Um... because I didn't respond to you within 5 minutes you think I'm talking it personal? First, I'm doing other things, not just forum trolling. Furthermore, you have yet to prove me wrong or prove yourself right. Save the shoulder injury and stop patting yourself on the back.

[Jacko3]

Um... because I didn't respond to you within 5 minutes you think I'm talking it personal? First, I'm doing other things, not just forum trolling. Furthermore, you have yet to prove me wrong or prove yourself right. Save the shoulder injury and stop patting yourself on the back.

Good knight:

Then we shall continue our banter then. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!

[Cold_Zero]

Afterall, Slick Willie (William J Clinton), did absolutely nothing and no one flew any aircaraft into any build9ing.

Jacko, You are right; no one flew aircraft into US buildings under Clinton’s watch. But to imply that everything was honky dory in the realm of terrorism, domestic and aboard during Clinton’s watch is delusional.

We saw under Clinton’s watch:The World Trade Center bombing 93Al Qaeda training Somali militias to shoot down American Blackhawk choppers with RPGs (sound familiar?) 93Khobar Towers bombing 95African Embassy Bombings 98USS Cole Bombing 00

We also saw our government acting as terrorists during his administration:Waco 93Operation Allied Force 99Chinese Embassy bombing in Belgrade 99Elian Gonzalez 00

To think that we knew no terrorism before 9-11 is delusional and stupid. To imply that the Clinton did not have to face terrorism during his administration is equally delusional and stupid. To also imply that the United States was much safer, because Clinton ‘did absolutely nothing and no one flew any aircrafts into any building' is moronic and shows you have no clue what you are talking about. 9-11 was a direct result of the failures of the Clinton Administration and the NSA (who was trailing the 9-11 conspirators inside the US and failed to notify the FBI) to realize the threat that Al Qaeda posed to this country and act on the threat.

Incidentally, William Jefferson Clinton decimated our intelligence gathering capabilities, ham strung the elements responsible for capturing/eliminating Osama bin Laden before 9-11, showed to the world and to any and all terrorlst groups that if you bloody the United State’s nose (by dragging the dead bodies of US Army Rangers through the streets of Mogadishu) that we would just tuck tail and run and treated any and all terrorlst threats and investigations as a policing matter for the FBI. He kept us real safe…/sarcasm.

[Jacko3]

You have a lot to learn. Yes it does. In order to deceive or give a wrong impression you must be trying to show them an untruth instead of a truth. How could you do this if you did not knwo there was an untruth? It IMPLIES intentional. You can't unintentionally deceive someone. You are still wrong. You simply fail to comprehend it.

Literary license does not have a place in an arguement of fact. It is for prose.

You're the one speculating. I listed a concise list of reasons. You don't make sense.

Um....

Troops died because they are being shot at. No amount of preparedness will let you have a war without deaths. Can you in retrospect, as Bush was speaking in that article, say that you were nto prepared for soemthing? We as humans make the best decisions we can at the tiem with the information at hand. A very old sayings says "Hindsight is always 20/20." It was in hindsight that he realized he was unprepared, and it takes a good deal of maturity to even admit that. Never has Bush said "I was unprepared when we went into Iraq and I knew it then."

Furthermore, As far as wars go, this one was run with the lowest casualty rate of any war we have been in, which is a testament to how well our military is organized. Pick an island, any random island from WW2 and more than likely more Americans died on that 1 island than in all of the 2003 Iraq campaign.

You aregue against the web links I provide, and then you argue against the dictionary and the comments you provided yourself. These are your words, not mine-----"2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Here is the exact link where you lifted your definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies

For example, if you were asked before graduation from college to note if you have have at least 120 credit hours towards a degree or not, all you put down on paper was that you had at least 120 credit hours. Of course you did not lie, because you have 120 credit hours as required for any degree. But to the evaluator, you lied because the specific degree you may be pursuing may still require you to accumulate 15 more hours before graduation. You see, to you it was unintentional, and to the evaluator, it was intentional. Any number of reasons could account for unintentional lies, which society has rightly labellled errors of judgement and action. Those reasons stem from fear, anxiety, cognitive dissonance, low self-esteem, etc. People go to jail everyday for unintentional acts--such as saying one thing to prosecutors today, and then changing their words tomorrow. No intention to decieve whatsoever, was involved with their actions. Confusion could have necessitated what you now consider as an intentional lie. The world is not always black and white.

If evidence shows that there was no weapons of mass destruction and evidence showed that Saddam did not engage in any significant activities with terrorists, then Bush lied about the war in Iraq.

Far from it, an argument is a form of prose, utilizing all the oratory skills available to the individual.

Your list of reasons were gathered from a source known to multiple sessions of manipulation and alterations from multiple sources, and thus, it is invalid.

LMAO! The more you speak, the sillier it sounds. Troops did not just die because they got shot at. They were sent there by someone to fight a war based on lies and deceit.

You said, "We as humans make the best decisions we can at the tiem with the information at hand." We call this situation, "satisficing". Look it up. I love schooling people. In Bush's case, much of the information was readily available to make the appropriate decision. I just handed you an article in which Bush said he was unprepared. I ask you again, if you are unpreapred for something significant, then why plunge into it??????????

Seems like you are an apologist for Bush and his insurmountable incompetence. It also seems like you have few words to support your logic which leaves me wondering how long you are going to survive the barrage of information i shall be raining down on you int he next few days as we proceed with this banter. Hahahahahahahaha!

Here is another report for your delight. Did Bush know nothing about the abuse also in Abu Ghraib???????????????????? Another 20/20 hindsight as you put it????????????????

http://levin.senate.gov/newsro...8.pdf

And if Bush is as truthful as you claim he is, why is a court required to force him to keep White House information?????????????????????????? Maybe an attempt to hide lies???????????????????????????

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

And please, stick to the argument at hand, and stop looking for intangible excuses to continue this banter. I will call any of your argument out from here on that has nothing to do with proving that Bush did not lie.

I am not a mental slave to Rush Limbaugh and his questionable devices.


Modified by Jacko3 at 11:28 AM 2/9/2009

[Jacko3]

Jacko, You are right; no one flew aircraft into US buildings under Clinton’s watch. But to imply that everything was honky dory in the realm of terrorism, domestic and aboard during Clinton’s watch is delusional.

We saw under Clinton’s watch:The World Trade Center bombing 93Al Qaeda training Somali militias to shoot down American Blackhawk choppers with RPGs (sound familiar?) 93Khobar Towers bombing 95African Embassy Bombings 98USS Cole Bombing 00

We also saw our government acting as terrorists during his administration:Waco 93Operation Allied Force 99Chinese Embassy bombing in Belgrade 99Elian Gonzalez 00

To think that we knew no terrorism before 9-11 is delusional and stupid. To imply that the Clinton did not have to face terrorism during his administration is equally delusional and stupid. To also imply that the United States was much safer, because Clinton ‘did absolutely nothing and no one flew any aircrafts into any building' is moronic and shows you have no clue what you are talking about. 9-11 was a direct result of the failures of the Clinton Administration and the NSA (who was trailing the 9-11 conspirators inside the US and failed to notify the FBI) to realize the threat that Al Qaeda posed to this country and act on the threat.

Incidentally, William Jefferson Clinton decimated our intelligence gathering capabilities, ham strung the elements responsible for capturing/eliminating Osama bin Laden before 9-11, showed to the world and to any and all terrorlst groups that if you bloody the United State’s nose (by dragging the dead bodies of US Army Rangers through the streets of Mogadishu) that we would just tuck tail and run and treated any and all terrorlst threats and investigations as a policing matter for the FBI. He kept us real safe…/sarcasm.

Child, first of all, here is a list of attacks that have occured on what one would consider US soil---this includes all soverign US property globally. I never implied, as erroneous and questionable as your judgement, might be that the world was honky dory, whatever that means. if you learn to be quiet and read a little about the articles i provide, I think you will be mentally safe and sound. I love this. I love unfettered folly. No proof, no evidence---yet there is a need to foam at the mouth at absolutely nothing. LMAO!

Here ya go!

Here is a PARTIAL list of terrorlst attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. Remember, U.S. Embassies ARE American soil.

2001, Anthrax AttacksMay 2002, United States, May: Luke Helder injures 6 by placing pipebombs in mailboxes in the Midwest. Motivation to protest government control over daily lives and the illegality of marijuana and promotion of astral projection (even flakes can be terrorists)July 4 2002: An Egyptian gunman opens fire at an El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles International Airport, killing two Israelis before being killed himself.October 2004: John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo conduct the Beltway Sniper Attacks, killing ten people in various locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area.June 30, 2004 Tashkent Islamic Jihad Group of Uzbekistan suicide b0mber attacks EmbassySeptember 12, 2006 Damascus Gunmen raid US EmbassyJanuary 12, 2007 Athens RPG Fired at Embassy by Revolutionary StruggleMarch 18, 2008 Sana'a Mortar attack against US EmbassySeptember 17, 2008 Sana'a Two car bombs outside US embassy in Yemeni capital

Yet, we are told we are safer than ever before becasue no one elese has ploughed into a building with an aircraft since 911. Yet, other forms of attacks are occuring on a routine basis on US property and soil world-wide. Go figure!

[AZhitman]

Jacko, if you post one more smiley, I'm gonna ban you. Period. It's childish, irritating, and serves no useful purpose.

Besides, if you're trying to convince anyone that you find their point of view so humorous, it leads me to believe you're rather smug and overconfident in your position.

And if you had that much insight into all things political, someone would be paying you for your efforts.

Last I checked, they're not.

So, sit back, accept the fact that you hold a differing opinion, and leave it at that.

So far, all I'm reading from you is the same lefty blather that's been prattled on ad nauseum since the Gulf War (which I remember vividly - do you?)

The entire matter is SO much more complex than you comprehend. Do some reading on where the intel came from, and you may start to see the light. Smarter people than you and I were led to believe we were doing the right thing, and the commission responsible for looking into it has said as much.

[OriginalWheelman]

You aregue against the web links I provide, and then you argue against the dictionary and the comments you provided yourself. These are your words, not mine-----"2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

Here is the exact link where you lifted your definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies

No I got it from here.

http://www.answers.com/topic/lie

For example, if you were asked before graduation from college to note if you have have at least 120 credit hours towards a degree or not, all you put down on paper was that you had at least 120 credit hours. Of course you did not lie, because you have 120 credit hours as required for any degree. But to the evaluator, you lied because the specific degree you may be pursuing may still require you to accumulate 15 more hours before graduation. You see, to you it was unintentional, and to the evaluator, it was intentional. Any number of reasons could account for unintentional lies, which society has rightly labellled errors of judgement and action. Those reasons stem from fear, anxiety, cognitive dissonance, low self-esteem, etc. People go to jail everyday for unintentional acts--such as saying one thing to prosecutors today, and then changing their words tomorrow. No intention to decieve whatsoever, was involved with their actions. Confusion could have necessitated what you now consider as an intentional lie. The world is not always black and white.

Nothing in this entire statement, however eloquent, amounts to deception. Nor does it refute my definition, or prove me wrong. If, in your first example your subject knew that he had 120 credit hours, and knew that 17 of them did not count towards the degree, then by putting 120 on the paper he would be trying to deceive. If he did not know, then he did not lie, he was merely wrong. If he believed he had 120 credit hours, and he wrote down 120 credit hours, then he told the truth, and he was not trying to hide anything.

If evidence shows that there was no weapons of mass destruction and evidence showed that Saddam did not engage in any significant activities with terrorists, then Bush lied about the war in Iraq.

This comes down to the definititoon of lie, which you are attempting to refute to make this statement true, as without a loose interpretation fo the word lie, it is false. If you were to make the statement:

"If evidence shows that there was no weapons of mass destruction and evidence showed that Saddam did not engage in any significant activities with terrorists, then the government was wrong about the war in Iraq."

then I would agree with you.

Far from it, an argument is a form of prose, utilizing all the oratory skills available to the individual.

Semantics are the argument of those with no real argument left. It seems to be all you are arguing.

Your list of reasons were gathered from a source known to multiple sessions of manipulation and alterations from multiple sources, and thus, it is invalid.

You list of sources all come from a know liberally biased source, for this reason they could also be considered invalid. This is the reason hearsay is not admissible in court. "But CNN told me it's true!" I have more faith in wikipedia because they aren't trying to make profit. For profit companies are always driven by the bottom line. Selling papers, generating web traffic.

LMAO! The more you speak, the sillier it sounds. Troops did not just die because they got shot at.

Then how did they die? I have an Iraq war vet in my house 3 x a week. I can't wait to show him this so he can lol.

They were sent there by someone to fight a war based on lies and deceit.

Again this comes down to you disputable definition of lie and your unproven allegations of deceit.

You said, "We as humans make the best decisions we can at the tiem with the information at hand." We call this situation, "satisficing". Look it up. I love schooling people.

I did look it up. It means taking an adequate answer. This is not what I was saying at all. I said make the best decision, not the easiest one that suits the task.

In Bush's case, much of the information was readily available to make the appropriate decision.

Or rather what you think was the appropriate decision.

I just handed you an article in which Bush said he was unprepared. I ask you again, if you are unpreapred for something significant, then why plunge into it??????????

A very old sayings says "Hindsight is always 20/20." It was in hindsight that he realized he was unprepared, and it takes a good deal of maturity to even admit that. Never has Bush said "I was unprepared when we went into Iraq and I knew it then."

Seems like you are an apologist for Bush and his insurmountable incompetence. It also seems like you have few words to support your logic which leaves me wondering how long you are going to survive the barrage of information i shall be raining down on you int he next few days as we proceed with this banter. Hahahahahahahaha!

And it seems to me that you have convinced yourself that you are right and are grasping for reasons why you are, and simply denying or trying to use semantics to cover up the fact that you have no hard evidence to back up your beliefs. I am not apologizing for Bush, I am trying to counter misinformation like the stuff you are portraying as fact. There is no proof that Bush fabricated anything. Many, many people have looked into this many, many times. It has been said for years. Just because people say it does not make it true. Proof and evidence does. I have been asking people for years to prove Bush fabricated this war and no one has ever offered definitive proof. You are another one of these people. It's a conspiracy theory. Just because it's a popular one, doesn't make it any less a conspiracy theory. And despite years of trying, it has yet to be proven.

Here is another report for your delight. Did Bush know nothing about the abuse also in Abu Ghraib????????????????????

I don't know but I do know that it was shuit down when it came to light.

Another 20/20 hindsight as you put it????????????????

http://levin.senate.gov/newsro...8.pdf

I'm reading all 19 pages I'll comment when I'm done.

And if Bush is as truthful as you claim he is, why is a court required to force him to keep White House information?????????????????????????? Maybe an attempt to hide lies???????????????????????????

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

I never said Bush was truthful. I'm sure it helps you rationalize this to think of me as a blind follower republican but it's simply not true. All I have been speaking of is going into Iraq when I said Bush did not lie. To answer your question, the article says in paragraph two, if you read that far..

The court's preservation notice Wednesday stems from an ongoing lawsuit by private groups over allegedly missing electronic messages, and allegations the White House failed to properly monitor its internal communications among staff.

And please, stick to the argument at hand, and stop looking for intangible excuses to continue this banter. I will call any of your argument out from here on that has nothing to do with proving that Bush did not lie.

You mean the argument about Rush? Or about this semantics / conspiracy rant you've taken us on?

[Jacko3]

Jacko, if you post one more smiley, I'm gonna ban you. Period. It's childish, irritating, and serves no useful purpose.

Besides, if you're trying to convince anyone that you find their point of view so humorous, it leads me to believe you're rather smug and overconfident in your position.

And if you had that much insight into all things political, someone would be paying you for your efforts.

Last I checked, they're not.

So, sit back, accept the fact that you hold a differing opinion, and leave it at that.

So far, all I'm reading from you is the same lefty blather that's been prattled on ad nauseum since the Gulf War (which I remember vividly - do you?)

The entire matter is SO much more complex than you comprehend. Do some reading on where the intel came from, and you may start to see the light. Smarter people than you and I were led to believe we were doing the right thing, and the commission responsible for looking into it has said as much.

Azhitman:

LMAO! The truth of the matter is that both parties have done us wrong with all their politics--dems and republs are guilty of this whole mess we find ourselves. I once wanted to enter politics, but when I saw that I would have issues with my conscience, I decided to live a normal life. I just chose sides to aid in more interesting abd vigorous banter. Beleive it or not, i am actually socially conservative. I know many won't beleive me. Most times, i just choose the democRaTic side becasue its easier to defend, but no less damaging to the welfare of this nation.

Once republicans can expunge republicons from their party, then I will be back to the republican part of Abe Lincoln. For now, I have no party affiliation.

[Cold_Zero]

YOU offered a very flippant statement, that implied that we were safer under the Clinton Administration, than presumably we were under the Bush Administration with the whole Global War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. YOU implied with this statement that because the Clinton Administration ‘did absolutely nothing’ that no one flew planes into buildings here in the US or aboard for that matter. I provided YOU with ample proof that your statement is wrong. Now if you want to retract the statement or implication, because that is not what you intended, that is fine. I might even suggest a change to your original statement, ‘After all, Slick Willie (William J Clinton), did absolutely nothing and three aircraft were flown into two buildings.’

I intentionally steered clear of the discussion pertaining to the Global War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not only did you fail to reply to my statement with anything germane about the Clinton Administration, but you went off on a tangent that you have been arguing with Orig Wheel Man.

But what I find

Child

-ish is that you have resorted to calling me names and trying to belittle me to win your argument? What will ultimately be your

folly

is your lack of being able to

read a little

box by my name that says ‘Super Moderator’ and

learn

that it isn’t wise to resort to such tactics.

[AZhitman]

Backpedaling is a hallmark of the Dem party.

[Jacko3]

No I got it from here.

http://www.answers.com/topic/lie

Nothing in this entire statement, however eloquent, amounts to deception. Nor does it refute my definition, or prove me wrong. If, in your first example your subject knew that he had 120 credit hours, and knew that 17 of them did not count towards the degree, then by putting 120 on the paper he would be trying to deceive. If he did not know, then he did not lie, he was merely wrong. If he believed he had 120 credit hours, and he wrote down 120 credit hours, then he told the truth, and he was not trying to hide anything.



This comes down to the definititoon of lie, which you are attempting to refute to make this statement true, as without a loose interpretation fo the word lie, it is false. If you were to make the statement:

"If evidence shows that there was no weapons of mass destruction and evidence showed that Saddam did not engage in any significant activities with terrorists, then the government was wrong about the war in Iraq."

then I would agree with you.

Semantics are the argument of those with no real argument left. It seems to be all you are arguing.

You list of sources all come from a know liberally biased source, for this reason they could also be considered invalid. This is the reason hearsay is not admissible in court. "But CNN told me it's true!" I have more faith in wikipedia because they aren't trying to make profit. For profit companies are always driven by the bottom line. Selling papers, generating web traffic.

Then how did they die? I have an Iraq war vet in my house 3 x a week. I can't wait to show him this so he can lol.

Again this comes down to you disputable definition of lie and your unproven allegations of deceit.

I did look it up. It means taking an adequate answer. This is not what I was saying at all. I said make the best decision, not the easiest one that suits the task.

Or rather what you think was the appropriate decision.

And it seems to me that you have convinced yourself that you are right and are grasping for reasons why you are, and simply denying or trying to use semantics to cover up the fact that you have no hard evidence to back up your beliefs. I am not apologizing for Bush, I am trying to counter misinformation like the stuff you are portraying as fact. There is no proof that Bush fabricated anything. Many, many people have looked into this many, many times. It has been said for years. Just because people say it does not make it true. Proof and evidence does. I have been asking people for years to prove Bush fabricated this war and no one has ever offered definitive proof. You are another one of these people. It's a conspiracy theory. Just because it's a popular one, doesn't make it any less a conspiracy theory. And despite years of trying, it has yet to be proven.

I don't know but I do know that it was shuit down when it came to light.

I'm reading all 19 pages I'll comment when I'm done.

I never said Bush was truthful. I'm sure it helps you rationalize this to think of me as a blind follower republican but it's simply not true. All I have been speaking of is going into Iraq when I said Bush did not lie. To answer your question, the article says in paragraph two, if you read that far..

You mean the argument about Rush? Or about this semantics / conspiracy rant you've taken us on?

I can't beleive what i am reading. Interesting! Thanks for supporting my argument.

You said,"If, in your first example your subject knew that he had 120 credit hours, and knew that 17 of them did not count towards the degree, then by putting 120 on the paper he would be trying to deceive. If he did not know, then he did not lie, he was merely wrong. If he believed he had 120 credit hours, and he wrote down 120 credit hours, then he told the truth, and he was not trying to hide anything. "

Remember I said, before graduation. For this, it is possible for a student not to know all that is required of them towards a degree or a specific degree. So, incomplete information to the respondent is a reason to appear as if respondent is lying, whther they knew the information was wrong or not. So, a lie is part fact and part perception, and thus the intentional and unintentional aspects of it. In the case of Bush, no such hard evidence existed that Iraq was tied to the hip with terrorists and that Saddam had a stockplie of WMD. Bush drummed up the war in Iraq and failed to get a united coalition from the UN to attack. Why did he refuse to get a coalition from the UN, if he was so right, as his daddy did in 1991???????????? Do you think his daddy was a fool or what????????????? His daddy is an ex-navy pilot with combat cockpit hours and experience.

Do you know why some lawyers win in court?????? They win becasue they can make arguments and play with semantics all day long. the legal system is not about right and wrong or truth or lies. It is about how to make words do your bidding. Learn that and you will be fine. Trust me!

I never said Bush fabircated a war. Check my previous comments. I said he fabricated reasons for the war. And if you feel he is so truthful, then why do you ignore the evidence i provide as fact that all was not well????? Do you have an issue with accepting facts. Did I produce those news articles??????????????

Abu Ghraib should never have happened to begin with. Whther or not it was shut down or not is irrelevant. The US is not a nation of torture-crazed sickos. We are a nation that respect people and their dignity.

And by the way, if I convinced myself, I have done so base don facts reported by those who are int he know. See all the many links I have provided to you . Yet, i am have to endure your evidenceless comments. LMAO!

Who are the many, many people who haev looked into Bush's affair??????????? I just gave you evidence supporting the fact that a court order was required to get the President to comply. Since when did WH documents become private matter of the President????????? Did it not take a subpoena form congress to drag out the audio tape fo Nixon which was used to politically hang him???????????????

When you are done reading the document, then lets discuss. Enjoy!