|
Compilation of prewar false statements
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 23 2008, 03:11 PM (2,068 Views)
|
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:07 PM
Post #61
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
You're making a valid point about FDR, but how does that apply to Bush? Wouldn't we know by now if there was some "clever" strategy behind the misleading? (And, by the way, I'm not ready to concede that this was such a great thing FDR did either.)
There was nothing "clever" about FDR's actions. He wanted to go to war and he knew the American people would not have it. So he mislead them. For his sack (and our own) his war turned out for the best. If it didn’t we might have a very different view of FDR all together, he might be the one we call the most dishonest president ever.
By that same right, what happens when Iraq stabilizes into a thriving democracy. And from there that democracy spreads to its neighbors. Will we still look back on this president and say he was the most dishonest, or will we say he was clever?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:12 PM
Post #62
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:07 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 11:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else? There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:
You do know one of the highest duties of congress is to provide check of the executive? In maters of war, congress is duty bound not to just read what the executive gives them. They are duty bound to come up with the facts them selves and provide oversight. That is how you run an effective government.
There is a system in place to do that. I don't know all the procedural details, but I would be surprised to find that it is the duty of every member of Congress to independently do their own verification process of everything the president says or even everything just specifically pertaining to war matters. At some point, many members relied on the information of others. And for the ones who did verify, I doubt they have access to all of the information that the President does. At the very least, they weren't part of all the same discussions, with the dissenting opinions, that the President was.
They form comities to consolidate the work and these comities are supposed to be bi-partisan, and I believe they are constitutionally granted all the information the president is given. That means that at lest some of the Democrats had access to all the information and those would most certainly be the party leaders.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:17 PM
Post #63
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:07 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
You're making a valid point about FDR, but how does that apply to Bush? Wouldn't we know by now if there was some "clever" strategy behind the misleading? (And, by the way, I'm not ready to concede that this was such a great thing FDR did either.)
There was nothing "clever" about FDR's actions. He wanted to go to war and he knew the American people would not have it. So he mislead them. For his sack (and our own) his war turned out for the best. If it didn’t we might have a very different view of FDR all together, he might be the one we call the most dishonest president ever. By that same right, what happens when Iraq stabilizes into a thriving democracy. And from there that democracy spreads to its neighbors. Will we still look back on this president and say he was the most dishonest, or will we say he was clever?
Was it the right decision? I don't think so. A President should not simply override the will of the people. That's what a democracy is all about. If he had a valid case for going to war, then he should have taken that case to the American people and persuaded them that it was the right way to go. Since we know now that there was a valid case, then this could have been done and could have worked.
Besides, in the end, technically Congress has the power to declare war with or without the consent of the people. So he still could have had his way without any deception anyway.
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:20 PM
Post #64
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:12 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:07 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 11:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else? There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:
You do know one of the highest duties of congress is to provide check of the executive? In maters of war, congress is duty bound not to just read what the executive gives them. They are duty bound to come up with the facts them selves and provide oversight. That is how you run an effective government.
There is a system in place to do that. I don't know all the procedural details, but I would be surprised to find that it is the duty of every member of Congress to independently do their own verification process of everything the president says or even everything just specifically pertaining to war matters. At some point, many members relied on the information of others. And for the ones who did verify, I doubt they have access to all of the information that the President does. At the very least, they weren't part of all the same discussions, with the dissenting opinions, that the President was.
They form comities to consolidate the work and these comities are supposed to be bi-partisan, and I believe they are constitutionally granted all the information the president is given. That means that at lest some of the Democrats had access to all the information and those would most certainly be the party leaders.
I can't point any fingers without know exactly who was on those committees and exactly how much information they had access to.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:30 PM
Post #65
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:17 PM
Was it the right decision? I don't think so. A President should not simply override the will of the people. That's what a democracy is all about. If he had a valid case for going to war, then he should have taken that case to the American people and persuaded them that it was the right way to go. Since we know now that there was a valid case, then this could have been done and could have worked.
Besides, in the end, technically Congress has the power to declare war with or without the consent of the people. So he still could have had his way without any deception anyway.
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
What do we know now that could have changed the minds of those who did not want to go to war then? That Hitler was a murdering dictator? That was Europe problem not the US's
And then Congress has to convince the people who do not want to go to war that its the right thing to do. How could FDR allow that?
Yea it won’t change your opinion, but what will our children think?
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:31 PM
Post #66
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:20 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:12 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:07 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:00 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 11:24 AM
How efficient would a government or business run if everyone did the same work as everyone else? There are reasons why summary reports are given and other people simply read them and trust that their coworkers have done their job properly... :rolleyes:
You do know one of the highest duties of congress is to provide check of the executive? In maters of war, congress is duty bound not to just read what the executive gives them. They are duty bound to come up with the facts them selves and provide oversight. That is how you run an effective government.
There is a system in place to do that. I don't know all the procedural details, but I would be surprised to find that it is the duty of every member of Congress to independently do their own verification process of everything the president says or even everything just specifically pertaining to war matters. At some point, many members relied on the information of others. And for the ones who did verify, I doubt they have access to all of the information that the President does. At the very least, they weren't part of all the same discussions, with the dissenting opinions, that the President was.
They form comities to consolidate the work and these comities are supposed to be bi-partisan, and I believe they are constitutionally granted all the information the president is given. That means that at lest some of the Democrats had access to all the information and those would most certainly be the party leaders.
I can't point any fingers without know exactly who was on those committees and exactly how much information they had access to.
Then find out who they where. Should be easy enough they should keep records.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:50 PM
Post #67
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
So if someone makes a mistake that causes the death of thousands of people, should they not be held accountable for it?
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:51 PM
Post #68
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:03 AM
Bush and some administration members had first-hand information. The others had what was reported to them.
Bush and co were weapons inspectors in Iraq? I did not know that.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:51 PM
Post #69
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Jan 24 2008, 12:30 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 12:17 PM
Was it the right decision? I don't think so. A President should not simply override the will of the people. That's what a democracy is all about. If he had a valid case for going to war, then he should have taken that case to the American people and persuaded them that it was the right way to go. Since we know now that there was a valid case, then this could have been done and could have worked.
Besides, in the end, technically Congress has the power to declare war with or without the consent of the people. So he still could have had his way without any deception anyway.
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion.
What do we know now that could have changed the minds of those who did not want to go to war then? That Hitler was a murdering dictator? That was Europe problem not the US's And then Congress has to convince the people who do not want to go to war that its the right thing to do. How could FDR allow that?
What convinced FDR? And why do you now think he made a good choice? Why does the public generally agree now? Just because we won? I don't think so. What good was winning if it wasn't something worth winning? So what made it worth it?
I can give answers offhand, but probably not ones that would have changed public opinion back then. But, if I was to invest considerable time into formulating a persuasive argument, then perhaps I could. If not me, someone more talented in persuasive arguments (like the people employed by Presidents, for example) surely could.
- Quote:
-
By that same right, what happens when Iraq stabilizes into a thriving democracy. And from there that democracy spreads to its neighbors. Will we still look back on this president and say he was the most dishonest, or will we say he was clever?
- Quote:
-
Yea it won’t change your opinion, but what will our children think? They will say, after all his bad choices, he got lucky.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:53 PM
Post #70
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:30 AM
- RTW
- Jan 23 2008, 07:52 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 23 2008, 05:21 PM
Where's your source and how is that the same? :rolleyes:
Most sources are cited. How is it the same??? How is it different? How come the "Center for Public Integrity" only cites Bush when many other politicians were saying the exact same thing? This is suspiciously similar to a moveon.org hit piece. Soros "only" donated $1.7 million to the center. ( link) Once again, it's a right-winged sistertrekkian providing balance to the left-winged post of a progressive/moderate/independent (?) sistertrekkian. 
I believe this is the appropriate reply:
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Jan 24 2008, 12:58 PM
Post #71
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- RTW
- Jan 24 2008, 12:51 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:03 AM
Bush and some administration members had first-hand information. The others had what was reported to them.
Bush and co were weapons inspectors in Iraq? I did not know that. 
Wow, you're skilled at mincing words. Great achievement.
:rolleyes:
And, since I know you're not stupid, then you know what I meant and (once again) didn't bother to actually address the point.
Do I take that as a concession or would you like to try again? Here, I'll even clarify what you already know so you don't have any excuses: They saw specific reports first-hand and had conversations first-hand that others only got reports about.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Jan 24 2008, 01:00 PM
Post #72
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
Was it the right decision? I don't think so. This is fine on it's own, but what you're saying is that "we had no part in it." Did you read the quotes from democrats pushing Bush to take action?
I find it curious that people on your side of the political aisle want us to recognize our collective guilt in slavery, the assassination of King Jr., etc, but deny any part of going to war.
The vote to take action is on record. It was pretty overwhelming.
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
A President should not simply override the will of the people. That's what a democracy is all about. If he had a valid case for going to war, then he should have taken that case to the American people and persuaded them that it was the right way to go. This is revisionist history. He had tremendous support to take action.
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:17 AM
And, regardless of how Iraq turns out in the end, it won't change my opinion. Many people share this view. Most of them because Bush will get credit. It's a symptom of BDR.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Jan 24 2008, 01:02 PM
Post #73
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Jan 24 2008, 10:20 AM
I can't point any fingers without know exactly who was on those committees and exactly how much information they had access to.
You admit you don't have all the information but you're going to point your finger at Bush anyway???
|
|
|
| |
|
Dr. Noah
|
Jan 24 2008, 01:03 PM
Post #74
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
- Posts:
- 17,698
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- January 8, 2004
|
He is the decider. He said so himself.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 24 2008, 01:03 PM
Post #75
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Dr. Noah
- Jan 24 2008, 12:50 PM
So if someone makes a mistake that causes the death of thousands of people, should they not be held accountable for it?
Hypothetically speaking, sure they should be held accountable. But you can't call them a lire if they haven’t lied.
|
|
|
| |