| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Compilation of prewar false statements | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,070 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 09:16 AM Post #31 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Because some of those are false statements. Must mean the Clinton administration are just as dishonest as the current one. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 09:26 AM Post #32 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Did JFK pick option # 2. There is a school of thought that JFK pushed the issue to the braking point, and that it was a scarred Khrushchev who kept nuclear war at bay. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 09:33 AM Post #33 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Ummm NO
it means you where wrong. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 24 2008, 09:34 AM Post #34 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
We have a word for it in the english language. Mistake. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 24 2008, 09:42 AM Post #35 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Do two wrongs make a right? The discussion of whether Bush was mistaken or if he lied is a valid one, no matter what past presidents did. Previous presidents lying does not make it ok for the current one to do so (and I am not concluding that he did). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 09:51 AM Post #36 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Well two answers. One) I haven't really made the clam that Clinton was lying. Just putting IE's logic to work there too. I should have been more clear. Two) about to wrongs making a right; we would first have to determine if the actions taken by presents which we have sweepingly labeled as 'dishonest' where in fact wrong. How wonderful it would be if the world where such a way where no one had to keep secrets and everything could be put on the table for all to see. But we don’t live in that world, maybe we will never live in that world and holding our leaders to some unattainable idealistic standard mybe where the wrong lies. There are so many questionable historical facts that if we demanded “honesty” then the world might not be where it is today. We might not be as well off as we are. How right is it for us to play the victim now? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:30 AM Post #37 |
|
Admiral
|
I believe this is the appropriate reply: ![]()
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:31 AM Post #38 |
|
Admiral
|
Wichita, Since, unlike RTW, you chose to actually discuss the topic, I will answer the question for you. First, I apparently misunderstood what RTW's point was. When he said looks like someone had tried this before, I thought he meant compiling a similar list about Bush. Between that statement and his clowning around, I didn't think he was actually making a serious point and so I didn't even read the list. I see now that he was talking about the Clinton administration. That said, I essentially agree with what you have said here. I would point out the following, however: While the Clinton administration may have made statements that were inaccurate, I don't know the degree to which there was disagreement behind the scenes over their accuracy. I do know this about the Bush administration from what I have read. If that same disagreement was there with Clinton, then I would certainly agree that presenting the statements as facts is the same behavior that the Bush administration is guilty of. Clinton, however, did not take the country to war with Iraq on such misrepresentation. Bush did. In addition, the website I posted was quite methodical about gathering its information. (See the "methodology" section.) RTW's statements apparently weren't even gathered by the same person, judging by his lack of being able to post the one source that he got that list from. So I also must question how accurately those statements represent the whole picture compared with what the website that I linked does. What's also funny about RTW's list is many of those wrong statements (ones that were said during the Bush administration and not by Clinton) were derived from the misinformation that the Bush administration was disseminating. I don't think the website is claiming that Bush knew the information was false. I believe they are claiming that he knew the picture wasn't clear, made a judgment call (even if that was truly his belief in the absence of any agenda) about which possibility was factual, but then presented the picture to the country and to his fellow politicians as though we knew these things to be true. As for the term, "meaningful", I see the point you are making. Obviously, that specific word wouldn't have to be used, but some equivalent would need to be present for the website to be accurate. I can't answer that without analyzing all the data more closely, but it's a valid point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:31 AM Post #39 |
|
Admiral
|
You are certainly entitled to your belief and opinion, but I must point out that it is only one possibility. Bush may have truly believed "the hype". He also was just coming off of a very controversial election from which a huge segment of the population was expressing a lot of animosity toward him. After 9/11, the table was set. He could handle this really well and win over a lot of those people or he could handle it all poorly and risk losing the support of so many more people. Naturally, even without that, he would want to handle it well anyway, but it was all the more important - important enough to fabricate things if need be - because of the election that put him in office. The immediate retaliation in Afghanistan didn't yield the capture of Bin Laden. In the absence of something like the Iraq war, this wasn't going to sit too well with the American people. He had to do something to prove he was really going all out to answer to what happened. In my opinion, I believe this weighed heavily on why he made the choices he did with his interpretations of the available information. At some level he may have believed it to a certain degree, but he also wanted and needed it all to be true. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:32 AM Post #40 |
|
Admiral
|
I would. And the fact remains that we may have taken other actions with better outcomes, including still deposing Saddam. For example, we may have had wider global support if the only difference was that we had taken the time to first pursuade other countries instead of rushing in on the erroneous assumption that Saddam might complete his ability to set of a nuclear missile at almost anytime. But then, other countries may have looked at the leaps of conclusions Bush and the administration were making and simply laughed. That's probably why they didn't do this... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:32 AM Post #41 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't agree. That's the whole point of citing sources. If you had to prove every last detail yourself, why bother with other sources at all? Plus, they may do so yet. It's an ongoing project right now. You're speaking of percentages vs. absolutes. I don't agree that this is important here. 935 out of 1,000,000,000,000 is still 935. And 935 is a lot particularly when they have the same theme; they're not just a random 935 inaccuracies. You have to look at the total picture. That's what makes them relevant. Collectively, they illustrate a pattern. I'm honestly not being difficult. The truth is history is not one of my strong areas. I am unaware of what you are referring to, but I accept that it's a whole other topic. The misleading is only one way in which I want future presidents to do better. What bothers me more than anything is that this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it. Some of that is because of 9/11 and some of that is because of how his administration has handled it and the country's business in general. And it will likely take us a long time to recover. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:35 AM Post #42 |
|
Admiral
|
Yes, if it's presented as though it is true rather than "I believe it to be true". |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:39 AM Post #43 |
|
Admiral
|
Good point. I forgot to say that in all the replies that I just posted, but had intended to. Since you already did, I'll just leave it at that. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:42 AM Post #44 |
|
Admiral
|
Or we might be even better off. "Playing victim", as you all it, is as right as it makes sense. And I think the day that we accept this is just as good as it gets and give up on trying to improve is the day that this country starts to die. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 10:45 AM Post #45 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I don't have time to answer all of what you wrote. But I dont accept that "this country is a lot worse off today than Bush found it." You will have to quantify this statement. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


Ummm NO

9:21 AM Jul 11