Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1.    #1  
    I guess we can start a TC tradition of re-opening a Bush Lied? thread....

    Here are the links to the first two threads that were closed, that have loads of great information:

    Bush Lied, You Decide I
    Bush Lied, You Decide II


    According the latest poll, the crowd that thinks Bush lied has dropped. The question was asked:

    Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded. In October 2004 38% said Yes. This month in July 2006 50% said yes. In the last 2 years there has been quite a jump of people changing their minds about whether Iraq had WMDs when we invaded.

    WMD Truth Is Out
    Posted 7/25/2006

    http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060725

    WMD: Americans are waking up from a distorted reality. Half now believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's up sharply from last year, when only 36% believed that he had banned weapons.

    The numbers, from a Harris Poll conducted earlier this month, showed — again — that the "Bush lied" crowd doesn't have a good handle on the truth.

    The growing number of believers is most likely due to recent reports that 500 shells that contained the nerve agents mustard gas and sarin gas have been found in Iraq since Saddam's regime was toppled in 2003.

    ---------------

    True, no "smoking gun" — if the definition of smoking gun is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead attached — has been found. But there are plenty of facts that support the administration's prewar assertion that Saddam posed a danger.

    ---------------------

    While more than 48,000 boxes of military documents have been captured since Baghdad fell, fewer than 100 have been studied. Those few have yielded a trove of information on Saddam's weapons programs. How much more information will be turned up as Washington sifts through more boxes in the next year?

    EDIT: Here is a thread linking to several of these newly translated Documents:

    Saddam Dossier: Just translated Docs from Saddam's Regime
    Here is the source to the actual poll:

    http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=684

    Interesting to see how it turns out:

    July 2006

    50% ....up from 38% two years ago. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded.
    72% The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.
    64%Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda.
    55% History will give the U.S. credit for bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

    Then they say:

    Agree Disagree Statement
    61 37 Invading and occupying Iraq has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack Americans and the United States

    56 42 Spending huge sums of money to invade and occupy Iraq has meant that a lot less money has been available to protect the United States against another terrorist attack


    41 58 Invading Iraq has helped to reduce the threat of another terrorist attack against the United States


    37 56 "Are you confident that Iraq will be successful in developing a stable and reasonably democratic government?"
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/27/2006 at 10:39 AM.
  2. #2  
    Holy Toledo, Hobbes...the meat and bones of this ridiculous post is based around polling of Americans!

    What you're trying to say is that if enough (and by this, you mean exactly half) of the population believes something, then it's true? "The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein = 72%" Why should we pay any mind towards to this figure, shouldn't we be asking the Iraqis instead? Have you not paid any attention to how bad it is in Iraq lately? You probably haven't, its coverage has fallen quite a bit ever since you know what.

    My real problem is people posting purportedly 'relevant' misleadingly-titled articles that actually debunk themselves. The article is called "WMD Truth Is Out", and you keep on reading and you stumble onto:

    "True, no "smoking gun" ... has been found"

    Lol, but they try backing up the assertion by saying that "President Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, Jacques Chirac and a host of other Bush bashers believed Saddam had WMD".

    So, we're back to belief, not Truth. This is ridiculous, Hobbes.
  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    Holy Toledo, Hobbes...the meat and bones of this ridiculous post is based around polling of Americans!
    Uhm.....what is wrong in polling Americans about what they think the reality of a situation is at the time an American President took action? It is funny that many the left used this EXACT same poll....on this very board....when it first came out and showed that only 38% of Americans believed Bush. But now it is bogus now because the numbers have changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    What you're trying to say is that if enough (and by this, you mean exactly half) of the population believes something, then it's true? "The Iraqis are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein = 72%" Why should we pay any mind towards to this figure, shouldn't we be asking the Iraqis instead? Have you not paid any attention to how bad it is in Iraq lately? You probably haven't, its coverage has fallen quite a bit ever since you know what.
    Yes I have. In fact I probably read more about BOTH the good and the bad than most. There are HUGE challenges, many that may never be overcome for decades, if ever. But there are still in the midst of this many good things happening as well. Iraqis are now taking full control of security in sectors of Iraq in time in the plan laid out by the Iraqi Pres to try to get US out within a VERY optimistic 18-24 months. The advances in their infrastructure in areas that have never had it before under Saddam have been completed and still on going. Very successful raids, you may not have read about, by Iraqi only personnel capturing large number of terrorists and huge caches of weapons.

    But to answer your question directly, American public opinion can often effect American policy. If the number would have flipped with 18% thinking it has improved instead of 72%, it does paint a totally different picture of our perspective. And as you pointed out it is nothing more than our perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    My real problem is people posting purportedly 'relevant' misleadingly-titled articles that actually debunk themselves. The article is called "WMD Truth Is Out", and you keep on reading and you stumble onto:

    "True, no "smoking gun" ... has been found"
    Did it strike you that that I made sure that I quoted the fact that there is no smoking gun? I also linked to another thread with extensive research and sources when they mentioned the newly translated docs in passing so anyone interested can see and decide for themselves.

    You will notice I did not just take the articles word. I did search and post the source of the poll. It is a poll. As such it can be used or conveniently tossed aside as seen fit to by anyone.....and used one time it is released and tossed aside the next when numbers change. And as with any poll it can be twisted to prove points on both sides of the fence. Which is what fascinated me more about this poll than anything else. And you will notice that I posted some interesting findings of this poll to support BOTH the traditional right and left side (which I saw the article conveniently failed to mention) of the Iraq debate as it stands today.


    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    So, we're back to belief, not Truth.
    Isn't that consistent with my statement?
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    According to the latest poll, the crowd that thinks Bush lied has dropped.
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    This is ridiculous, Hobbes.
    With how many times I hear either someone like Anne Coulter or Howard Dean say "The American people feel that....." I find it interesting, if not valuable, to see the changes in and current American views in polls like this to see how much they are accurately presenting or stretching to prove their point at hand.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/27/2006 at 11:59 AM.
  4. #4  
    I don't have the patience for this debate, but I have to respond to two comments:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal

    Iraqis are now taking full control of security in sectors of Iraq in time in the plan laid out by the Iraqi Pres to try to get US out within a VERY optimistic 18-24 months. The advances in their infrastructure in areas that have never had it before under Saddam have been completed and still on going.

    If you pay as much attention as you say you do, you should note that in Bagdahd, where the Iraqi forces have the most responsibility for security operations, the situations has worsened dramatically. In fact, it's gotten so bad that Mr. President is now transferring AMERICAN troops from other parts of Iraq to the city to try to reduce the daily bloodshed. But robbing Peter to pay Paul won't solve the problem. At best, it will move it elsewhere.

    Dozen's of people are slaughtered in Iraq every day. 6,000 in the last 2 months alone, and the problem's getting worse, not better. The average Iraqi is in more danger of losing his or her life today than they were under Saddam.
    And the last poll of Iraqis I saw showed an overwhelming majority wanted the U.S. to leave now. The Iraqi's themselves think we're making things worse.


    As for infrastructure, what are you smoking? Most Iraqi's still only get electricity for a few hours a day. Electricity was taken for granted under Saddam. We still can't manage to protect the oil infrastructure well enough to ship any significant amount of crude. I suspect Saddam illegally exported more oil than the country legally ships today. Gasoline is so hard to get that a black market exists in a country with huge oil reserves.


    As for the question in the thread title, and the poll results you tout, what American's believe about WMD doesn't change the facts. Americans' belief has more to do with the success or failure of the propaganda efforts of both sides of the argument than it does the facts. The shells you refer to have long since been determined, by our own defense department, to be old, unused, and no threat to the U.S.

    Even the White House doesn't try to claim there really were WMD's any more--instead they blame faulty intelligence. The only people still trying to make the WMD argument are the extreme right wing neo-cons who got us into this mess in the first place.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #5  
    whats all this got to do with lying?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #6  
    btw, the current use of the evolving term "extreme right wing neo-cons" is code for Jew, or at the very least Jew-Supporter.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    btw, the current use of the evolving term "extreme right wing neo-cons" is code for Jew, or at the very least Jew-Supporter.
    Did you know that Jewish Americans are not extreme right wing, in fact they are generally among the most liberal Americans?

    In the 2004 election they voted 77 percent for Kerry 22 percent for Bush.

    Here is an interesting article which explains why most Jewish voters dislike Bush and his conservative policies despite Bush's support of Israel.

    http://news.bostonherald.com/columni...format=&page=1
  8.    #8  
    According to the article you quoted, it has to do with domestic issues instead of foreign.
    In other words you get to have your foreign policy cake and eat your domestic pie, too.

    The Solomon Project, which studies Jewish voting trends for Democrats, released a report last year which showed more subtlety in the Kerry romp of Bush among Jewish voters than meets the eye. Male Jews under the age of 30 voted more strongly for Bush, as did Jews who attended synagogue regularly.

    Nonetheless, it’s fair to say that unless the next Republican nominee for president is pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, Jewish votes will again go for Kerry or Clinton or name-that-Democrat in overwhelming numbers.

    It makes you wonder why Bush, upon receiving a hand-delivered letter from the Saudi king on Sunday, didn’t respond “how high” when asked to jump into the Israeli ceasefire quagmire. President Bush’s entire foreign policy in the Middle East is based on oil - or avenging a long-ago threat to his dad’s life - depending on which Bush basher you ask.
    As with any demographic, there maybe tendencies one way or another, but I also found it interesting that there are wide swings on the outskirts as well. I heard an interview the other day with a Rabbi that heads an org that is against the existence of Israel. It was also pointed out that, as you can imagine, they do not have a whole lot of support amongst other Jews and Rabbis in general.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/27/2006 at 05:30 PM.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    btw, the current use of the evolving term "extreme right wing neo-cons" is code for Jew, or at the very least Jew-Supporter.
    This is not true. And it never has been true. Some people or groups have tried to manipulate the meaning of neo-con to mean pro-jewish. Why I don't know.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    This is not true. And it never has been true. Some people or groups have tried to manipulate the meaning of neo-con to mean pro-jewish. Why I don't know.
    It's very simple, they were trying to label those who criticized neocons as anti-semites.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    It's very simple, they were trying to label those who criticized neocons as anti-semites.
    That sounds like a conspiracy!
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That sounds like a conspiracy!
    Yeah, but it's been a while since people equated the two, I was surprised Micael brought it up.

    Funny 'cuz I recently read something about this, when columnist David Brooks (in Jan '04) said that neo stood for jewish, he was strongly criticized to the point where he had to recant and say that it 'was meant as a joke'.

    http://antiwar.com/barganier/?articleid=1566

    It is my understanding that nowadays, the term is used to describe extreme, imperialistic conservatives (read: Cheney).
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    Yeah, but it's been a while since people equated the two, I was surprised Micael brought it up.

    Funny 'cuz I recently read something about this, when columnist David Brooks (in Jan '04) said that neo stood for jewish, he was strongly criticized to the point where he had to recant and say that it 'was meant as a joke'.

    http://antiwar.com/barganier/?articleid=1566

    It is my understanding that nowadays, the term is used to describe extreme, imperialistic conservatives (read: Cheney).
    Yes, my understanding is it applied to the conservatives who cam eup in the Reagan era administration and came to believe in pre-emptive warfare and even believed Reagan should have attacked the USSR.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I heard an interview the other day with a Rabbi that heads an org that is against the existence of Israel.
    Watching "the factor" again eh Hobbes? O'Reilly sure likes having fringe nut cases on his show, and the funny thing is, he seems to relate to them so naturally.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    This is not true. And it never has been true. Some people or groups have tried to manipulate the meaning of neo-con to mean pro-jewish. Why I don't know.
    Maybe because the talking heads use the term often when talking about those that show support for israel vs support for the terrorists (and their puppetmasters) who are trying to remove israel from the planet?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Maybe because the talking heads use the term often when talking about those that show support for israel vs support for the terrorists (and their puppetmasters) who are trying to remove israel from the planet?
    Yea, it's all about Israel. <---sarcasm
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, it's all about Israel. <---sarcasm
    I didn't say I agreed with them
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I didn't say I agreed with them
    Gotcha.

  19.    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Watching "the factor" again eh Hobbes? O'Reilly sure likes having fringe nut cases on his show, and the funny thing is, he seems to relate to them so naturally.
    It very well could have been. I was driving for nearly 20 hours in the first 2 days of this week, so I was flipping every 20 minutes from one show to the next not paying much attention to the show but stopped and listened depending on the story or interview they had on at the time.

    But I agree....he does have many extremes on his show. What did you think of that Rabbi?
  20.    #20  
    I think you got worked up about more than you think you did.
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    I don't have the patience for this debate, but I have to respond to two comments:

    If you pay as much attention as you say you do, you should note that in Baghdad, where the Iraqi forces have the most responsibility for security operations, the situations has worsened dramatically. In fact, it's gotten so bad that Mr. President is now transferring AMERICAN troops from other parts of Iraq to the city to try to reduce the daily bloodshed.
    I think I was a little to subtle for you to realize we agree more than you think. As I agree with all the challenges you listed above. I guess I really needed to more detailed oriented when I stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    There are HUGE challenges, many that may never be overcome for decades, if ever.
    My only point was that even though Baghdad has taken huge steps in the wrong direction, there are good things happening in the right direction in other parts of Iraq. Are you able to recognize that? Recognizing the positive things says nothing about the challenges still be faced and that are increasing in the recent weeks.


    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    As for infrastructure, what are you smoking?
    There is more than electricity. We have built paved roads and bridges to places that has never had them before, which in turn opens up whole brand new opportunities in local economies and transportation. We have build schools and hospitals and trained the staff to run them in areas that have always been deprived of these basics under Saddam. We have increased capacity of piped running water to outlaying villages, etc..... If you want to see many, many other similar examples of what we have done in this area see several sources I cited in the Iraq Good / Bad thread.

    And again, recognizing what we have done good does not take away what has not been done, what needs to be done better, or what yet has to be finished.


    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    As for the question in the thread title, and the poll results you tout, what American's believe about WMD doesn't change the facts. ...........

    Even the White House doesn't try to claim there really were WMD's any more--instead they blame faulty intelligence.
    For the second time, this has nothing to do with changing the FACTS. It was only a poll of tracking what Americans think over the last two years and how some items have remained constant while others have shifted drastically. Nothing more. Nothing more to read into it. Nothing more to make out of it. It proves nothing. It provides proof of nothing. Only what American citizens are thinking. That's it.

    I hope that this time I was clear enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    The only people still trying to make the WMD argument are the extreme right wing neo-cons who got us into this mess in the first place.
    Then doesn't the fact that it jumped from 38% to 50% as time went on that believe there were WMDs at the time we invaded make the findings of this poll even that much more interesting?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/27/2006 at 09:21 PM.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions