Who here thinks Congress ACTUALLY believed the Bush Lies?

[mnealtx 0]

Oh, yay!! We've come back around full circle to the "If you're not a Democrat you're an idiot" condescension...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just about everything you guys have had in your wet dreams you have enacted.... if you could have gotten away with all of the fascist kabalistic crap that this Administration sees as its mandate from the Neo-Cons and the Religeous Wrong.. they would... no restraint whatsoever... DRINK THE RED KOOLAID all you want.. it will not make this a better country to live in.

You keep trying to group me in with a pretty scare, mostly ficticious group. Is there any justification for doing so.... other than I disagree with your (arguably) extremist views?

Quote

You keep trying to group me in with a pretty scare, mostly ficticious group.

Funny how there were (supposedly) about 50% of the voters voting for Bush, yet you can only find 3 guys and 3-legged dog now willing to admit voting for him.

Didn't we go over this last week? About the bullshit claim that no one is now willing to admit they I voted for Bush?

I voted for Bush. Perhaps you can produce some evidence of Republicans now claiming they never voted for Bush.

What I find silly is the paranoid claim that anyone who voted for Bush is an ultra-conservative, neo-con, fascist, civil rights stealing, fundamentalist, cold-hearted, bastard moron.

You guys seem to lap this stuff up... even though it's pure non-sense.

[idrankwhat 0]

I think that Congress saw Saddam as a pest and of course, would like to have seen him gone. I think they also knew that the new administration had wanted to go after him for years and now that the Vulcans were in power that the call for war was only a matter of time. I think they also were aware of the unique relationship between the VP's office and the intelligence community. They allowed themselves to be sold the bill of goods, some more actively ignorant than others but all with the notion that "if the official pitch is good enough for us to dump the authority and responsibility in the lap of a President who desperately wanted it, and still keep our jobs, and still keep our jobs, and still keep our jobs, then......ok". I don't want to exclude the media's role either in helping them abdicate their responsibility. It was best described as complicity through complacency". The Washington Post even apologized for it, I believe it was printed on page C419....right between the ad for an escort service and an announcement of a public rezoning hearing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Right, the filtered reports were supplied by your hero's admin.... It is considered a moot point at this juncture that Bush lied to Congress, if you wish to continue thinking he didn't, it's really, honestly OK with me.

Got proof or just accusations?
Anything that would stand up in court, or just ranting?

Let's see, many if not most people convicted of murder and sent to death row are done so via circumstantial evidence because criminals have a problem lying and our system is set up that way, but you demand that an administrative standard of proof be raised beyond that. If I don't have an audio-video tape, then it must be dissmissed.

There are certain things in this life that tip the scale of obviousness and that absolute, 100% definitive proof willnever be available, so we look at other indicators for probability.

What your asking for is the jesus argument: can't disprove it so it must be true.

Again, what is most compelling to me is the interview I saw a year ago with Tim Russert where Ken Mehlman, RNC chair said, The Senate had the exact same intil that Bush had." He said this twice, then Russert introduced the Washington Post's review and then Mehlman said, "OK, the Senate had basically the same intel that Bush did." This is hard evidenc to me that they had cherry-picked intel. Mehlman is a puppet for the RNC, so he's going to skew on their side, so the truth probably resides closer to the notion that the Senate had some of teh intel that Bush decided to give them.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Right, the filtered reports were supplied by your hero's admin.... It is considered a moot point at this juncture that Bush lied to Congress, if you wish to continue thinking he didn't, it's really, honestly OK with me.

Got proof or just accusations?
Anything that would stand up in court, or just ranting?

Furthermore, neo-cons like to be 'ends-justify-the-means' kind of people, so they haven't found WMD's...... uh, er....

[mnealtx 0]

Hearsay != evidence

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Hearsay != evidence

LOve how you guys ingore 99% of a post and just reply so all the other data in it doesn;t show up. It is acquiescence, just to let ya know .

Hearsay has executed people, yet it can't be used as a standard for an administrative action.

BTW, what in my post is hearsay?

Is this in response to the Mehlman post? I watched it. Technically, hearsay is an asertion not made in court, so this is all hearsay. Quit cutting and running.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep trying to group me in with a pretty scare, mostly ficticious group.

Funny how there were (supposedly) about 50% of the voters voting for Bush, yet you can only find 3 guys and 3-legged dog now willing to admit voting for him.

Didn't we go over this last week? About the bullshit claim that no one is now willing to admit they I voted for Bush?

I voted for Bush. Perhaps you can produce some evidence of Republicans now claiming they never voted for Bush.

Quote

I didn;t say no one,

Right. you said three (out of 60 million!!!)

Quote

but thanks for reaffirming that neo-cons like absolutes.

This makes no sense.

Quote

I'm just saying they don't rush to be counted.

Nice backpedal.

Quote

Quote

What I find silly is the paranoid claim that anyone who voted for Bush is an ultra-conservative, neo-con, fascist, civil rights stealing, fundamentalist, cold-hearted, bastard moron.

Well, I don;t think they're a bastard. All joking aside, are you proud of the SUBSTANTIAL movement of this country? List all of the things that make you proud over the last 6 years and explain how the various parties or politicians have made it happen. Be sure to include the deficit / debt.

Quote

You guys seem to lap this stuff up... even though it's pure non-sense.

What's pure nonsense? The country being in an illegal war? The debt being so high taht it can't possibly ever rescind? That Bush lied about via at least suppression of intel, the claim of WMD's? I'm just dying to hear what is nonsense.

I'm talking about your dishonest stereotyping of anyone who voted for Bush... not Bush's record. Sorry you seem to have difficulty making that distinction.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Information? I think you mean misinformation. The word "gullible" comes to mind, too.

Res. 114, passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23.

Sandy Berger former NSA from Clinton thought there were WMD's.

Gore and Kerry leading democratic canidates thought he had them. Why would they back Bush's 'evil' plan?

So they didn't learn the right lessons in the '60s and '70s. The government lies.

If you take that as a starting point for processing information from any government source, you will be less likely to get suckered into costly wars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.