It was also opinion that we could democratize Iraq at the point of a gun -- or that we'd be greeted as liberators.

If you don't want to get fleeced by shysters, you look for signs of honesty or lack of same. Bush's delivery is way too scripted. When he's off script, the words and phrasing he uses tells me that he's winging it, doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking about.

Here's a whopper lie: when big bad Helen Thomas asked Bush why he wanted to go to war in Iraq, Bush became indignant and said no president wants war. Puh-leez. Rummy was already making plans to invade Iraq the afternoon of 9/11. The PNAC crowd had been pushing for it for years. Rove/Bush saw his high numbers after the Afghanistan knock down. Rove practically got wood whenever he heard the phrase "wartime president."

Bush couldn't wait to show the world that he had the cahonnes to finally take out Saddam.... unlike his daddy.



Opinion? You bet. I vote based on my opinion, just like everyone else. We'll never know for sure whether or not he was lying or just poorly informed unless he comes out and admits to it. Either way, he's in way over his head, and we're all going to take the hit for that.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Who ever said it wasn't?

I was hoping you would defend your earlier comment:Are you saying that the basis for your highly judgmental comment is that the accusations against Bush are opinions? If a "controlling authority" ruled that Bush lied, would that make it a fact? If so, then doesn't it bother you that you rely on "controlling authorities" to tell you what the truth is?

Sorry for all the questions, but I was also hoping that you would explain how a "controlling authority" would ever rule on this issue. What "controlling authority" do you mean?

My point is that we are repeating opinion as if it were fact. It is not fact. It is widely disputed opinion with convincing arguments on both sides of the political schism. It is becoming propaganda that Bush lied and thousands died as a result, as if thousands weren't dying already.

I am only saying that terse statement of opinion does not make it fact. Has public opinion ever been catastrophically wrong before? Coupled with emotion and special interest has this opinion ever been used to commit injustices?

I'm deeply disappointed that we entered the war the way we did. We essentially went in with opinion presented as fact. The controlling authorities were divided.

By 'controlling authority' I mean a universally accepted entity charged and empowered with the aegis to discover the truth parsed from opinion and facts. We use these devices everyday. I think it is a more prudent path for resolution of such things as whether the pres. lied to involve us in Iraq.

If a controlling authority ruled he lied, I'd find the resolution more convincing since there is at least a tacit expectation of impartiality...........a component sharply absent in opinions posted here and many other locations. And who ever said they weren't opinions? Well, noticeably omitted from the text in the accusations I've been reading of late, are such phrases as, "I think......" or, "I believe........" or, "My opinion is..........

I think conviction without the benefit of vetting the truth from fantasy is a dangerously slippery slope. It leads to mob rule and eventually tyranny.

I value all of the opinions posted on this and the other boards I visit. Some opinions are better considered than others, but even the least researched opinion is useful when tempered by objectivity.

Sorry conversing with me is so tedious. My free time is fairly diminished lately.

Hopefully, the opinion on which you rely to vote is based on fact. Otherwise, a great disservice is rendered.

My time is limited as well, hence the distillation of the essence of the issues as:

"He lied, they died".

Makes for a nice sound bite, refreshingly free of nuance or mixed emotions, which as we all know, are difficult for Merkins to properly digest in these troubling times.

without the element of resolved fact, it is propaganda.

That's a good expression of your opinion on this. I agree with much of it.

I think that in many matters, we'll never have the full facts at our disposal. Reading between the lines becomes necessary, specially with the kind of spin this admin, and most all politicians, for that matter, employ these days.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

That this administration spins and dances around the facts is not a surprise. It is comprised of politicians. Which politicians are in direct conflict with other politicians who want the power and are seemingly willing to sacrifice any lamb to get it.

I think spin happens on both sides and is equally deceptive. Usually I dismiss the accusation of spinning an issue as a pot/kettle sort of thing.

Y'up, that's exactly what it is. Merkins apparently can't handle the facts. We've handed the reins to marketeers, long ago.

Which of the the three marketeers are you?

Mo

That belief is widely held. IMHO, it is the secret to the success of Karl Rove and Fox News.

To them, "Fair and Balanced," means that both sides of every issue must be covered, even if one side is lying through its teeth. It's no wonder they've been so influential. They are not constrained by the truth. That's a big advantage.

I know you don't like opinions, but this is mine.

I have trouble squaring that statement with this one:If there are convincing arguments on both sides, why do you attribute evil intent to those who disagree with Bush?And why isn't it propaganda to say that his lies did not result in deaths?I can't think of any such controlling authorities that are relevant to this issue, except Congress, and we know they aren't going to do anything worthwhile.No sweat. Tedious is my middle name. (duckling is my street name, tedious is my middle name)

I wouldn't say the intent is necessarily evil. I would say perhaps dishonest at worst and myopic at least. That the arguments are convincing is not to say that I am convinced, only that some are convinced

In my case, it is prudent speculation to recognize he likely was not lying while allowing for the possibility he could have, being human and all. In my view it is propaganda to structure the question as you have, inferring the lie exists as a fact.

You are correct, if the nature of this statement is that political interests would attempt to limit if not eliminate any measure to impeach the pres. in the event of credible evidence of intentional deceit were to be presented. However, I believe it would ultimately be unsuccessful.

There are established avenues for redress of grievances. Our three branches of govt. are designed to be independent and though two are controlled by the reps., it would be nearly impossible for them to gain control of the third during one single presidential reign .


Most folks don't have the patience to go on with the same topic over three to four days.

......and James Carville and Bill Maher and Al Franken

I like opinions. I like them so much, I think folks should proudly announce their statement of them.