Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:37:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
386 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada.
The best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested
that WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don’t) and he was wrong.
Nobody can prove that he deliberately lied (if they could, wouldn’t you
think his head would already be on a platter?).
|
If Democrats has sufficient sway in Congress, there would certainly be an
independent counsel investigating the run-up to the war (a la Ken
Starr/Whitewater), but Republican lock-steppers have resisted any efforts in
this regard. Likewise, the Dubya administration has stonewalled all efforts at
independent assessment of the intelligence data, consistently waving the
“national security” flag.
Do you accept that, even if Dubya et all have not lied per se, the
administration has indeed been giving inconsistent, equivocative, and
deliberatly misleading accounts of the war on terror? This is demonstrably
true, and such prevarication doesn’t speak well for a president who has postured
himself as a man of morals and integrity.
| |
Again, at best he may have been wrong, not lying.
|
I don’t know if that qualifies as “at best,” but I see what you’re getting at.
If Dubya had any integrity at all, he would admit that he was wrong (on any
number of subjects, but specifically on the issue of WoMD in Iraq). Lukewarm
admissions that members of his administration have “misspoken” are not
sufficient; he must admit to and take responsibility for massive factual errors.
Likewise, he doesn’t have the luxury of demanding patience from the American
people. At issue is whether or not Dubya abused the public trust and violated
the Constitution, so he can’t simply say “wait and see.” Instead, he and his
press team are steadfastly insisting that everyone in the world is mistaken.
While I’m at it, is there a point at which you’d agree that widespread error is
sufficient to call into question the man’s fitness to rule? How many massive
errors will you permit him before demanding accountability?
| |
It really boils down to whether or not you trust Bush.
I happen to believe he is an honest man; you don’t.
|
The President is absolutely the last person we should trust--his every move
should be exactingly scrutinized, within reasonable (not blanket) demands of
national security and executive privilege.
I specifically do not trust Dubya because he’s a phony. He’s a favorite-son
richboy posing as a flannelclad everyman rube. The falsehood of this artifice
is sufficient to cast doubt on his sincerity elsewhere, just as Republicans
claimed that Clinton’s sexual improprieties were sufficient to cast doubt on his
entire presidency.
| |
| |
I support the right to commit suicide for whatever reason(s) one chooses.
|
Really. What if they choose to commit suicide by strapping on TNT and
denotating themselves in a crowded family restaurant?
|
That’s a straw man. In the case you describe, the individual is committing
suicide and also committing homicide, which is not what Richard is talking
about. If the guy wants to load himself up with dynamite and detonate himself
on his own property, I say let him do it.
| |
What, you don’t like Monty Python?
| |
I don’t think that this is truly an idle question
|
|
A pun! A very palpable pun!
| |
| |
Can you imagine being denied access to the sickbed of a loved one just
because the law does not recognize the nature of your relationship? Is there
a point to something like that?
|
Sounds like hospital policy to me.
|
A hospital that receives even a small amount of public, tax-payer funding should
not be permitted to discriminate in this way. Would you support a public
hospital’s right to refuse treatment or visitation access to Christians?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) As for the threat of terror (imminent or otherwise), this is what I genuinely believe: I have no doubt that if SH had biological, chemical or nuclear WMDs at his disposal, he eventually would have made them available to terrorists such as OBL (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada. The best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested that WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don't) and he was wrong. Nobody can prove (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
