President Bush, October 2002

[Care4all]

It is long and I am going to have to do this in two posts because only 10,000 characters are allowed per post, but please read this speech of President Bush from 2002, the time of the Iraq resolution to disarm Saddam...



For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio

8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[Care4all]

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

[Care4all]

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

[Care4all]

this speech is full of so many lies, it is pathethic.... :(

[Immanuel]

It is long and I am going to have to do this in two posts because only 10,000 characters are allowed per post, but please read this speech of President Bush from 2002, the time of the Iraq resolution to disarm Saddam...

Hint: That is why you post the first few paragraphs and a link. ;)

Immie

[maineman]

reading that deceitful piece of shit and remembering how that fearmongering was used to scare this nation into war makes me sick to my stomach.

the world is a much scarier and less safe place today because of those 537 disputed votes in Florida.... the thousands of jews in palm beach that voted for Buchanan on the confusing butterfly ballot ought to have their right to vote removed.

[Damocles]

It is long and I am going to have to do this in two posts because only 10,000 characters are allowed per post, but please read this speech of President Bush from 2002, the time of the Iraq resolution to disarm Saddam...

Hint: That is why you post the first few paragraphs and a link. ;)

Immie

Yuh... :cig:

[klaatu]

this speech is full of so many lies, it is pathethic.... :(


Correction .... not lies ... a very well constructed speech meant to support a preoncieved plan. Big difference...
Remember ... the Intellegence Report was not correct, Iraq once had the WMD's that he spoke of, to believe that they didnt is to ignore what Saddam did to his own people. We know this to be true.

So ... it was a very crafty manipulative speech ... and it worked ... but with terrible results.

[klaatu]

reading that deceitful piece of shit and remembering how that fearmongering was used to scare this nation into war makes me sick to my stomach.

the world is a much scarier and less safe place today because of those 537 disputed votes in Florida.... the thousands of jews in palm beach that voted for Buchanan on the confusing butterfly ballot ought to have their right to vote removed.


Damn! maineman... you're coming across like Mel Gibson ... did you have a few drinks this mornin? ;)

[Care4all]

Correction .... not lies ... a very well constructed speech meant to support a preoncieved plan. Big difference...
Remember ... the Intellegence Report was not correct, Iraq once had the WMD's that he spoke of, to believe that they didnt is to ignore what Saddam did to his own people. We know this to be true.

So ... it was a very crafty manipulative speech ... and it worked ... but with terrible results.
crafty manipulation to mislead us....
that by definition is a "lie"......note number 2.


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary






lie
16 entries found for lie. The first 10 are listed below.
To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
lie[1,intransitive verb]lie[2,noun]lie[3,verb]lie[4,noun]LieLie[1]big liegive[1,verb]lie bylie detector

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 : to create a false or misleading impression

[klaatu]

To control or operate upon (a person or group) by unfair means to one's own advantage.....

Do all Sales people lie? Or are they manipulating?

[Care4all]

Klaatu, I know we probably differ on the above, but it is honestly how I evaluate it....

[klaatu]

Klaatu, I know we probably differ on the above, but it is honestly how I evaluate it....


I dont like the word lie because it has become the standard slogan of Democrat Propganda.. , its like Franken and Moore wrote the playbook, I wish the party would take the high road and stop using it....

[maineman]

Damn! maineman... you're coming across like Mel Gibson ... did you have a few drinks this mornin? ;)

LOL...no...I am, as you know, very pro-Israel....I have no problems with them at all...just the bunch of idiots in Florida who mistakenly voted for a nazi instead of Gore, and, in so doing, basically fucked up the whole world.

[Care4all]

To control or operate upon (a person or group) by unfair means to one's own advantage.....
Do all Sales people lie? Or are they manipulating?


I don't see a relation of those two statements .....

You can control or operate upon others.... by unfair means without Lying....???

two different sins!

hahahaha..... ;)

[Damocles]

LOL...no...I am, as you know, very pro-Israel....I have no problems with them at all...just the bunch of idiots in Florida who mistakenly voted for a nazi instead of Gore, and, in so doing, basically fucked up the whole world.
How do you know that they were all Jewish?

[maineman]

I know that the votes came from a predominantly jewish neighborhood

[Damocles]

I know that the votes came from a predominantly jewish neighborhood
I always found it telling that when presented with a ballot equally confusing 1st graders were able to actually vote the way that they wanted...

I can't see why mentioning their ancestry helps though. People who can't actually vote for who they want to should give up voting.

[maineman]

there were thousands of votes cast for Buchanan in a predominantly jewish neighborhood. Odds are that at LEAST 537 of them were cast in error by Jews who meant to vote for Gore. Pat B. himself stated that he had no doubt that those votes were NOT meant for him....

As it turned out, the carelessness of those handful of people fucked up the entire world. Shame on them.

[Care4all]

How do you know that they were all Jewish?

It was reported as such....not that all of them were Jewish, but that many of them were....if memory serves....?

Besides, it was estimated that thousands of votes went to Pat B., and Pat B admitted that he not once campaigned in palm beach county, he spent his time and money in the ft lauderdatle/broward county market, and he got double the votes in palm beach county than he did in broward county.... in other words pat openly says that those many of thousands of votes that were attributed to him due to the mistake, were most certainly not votes for him....

[Care4all]

there were thousands of votes cast for Buchanan in a predominantly jewish neighborhood. Odds are that at LEAST 537 of them were cast in error by Jews who meant to vote for Gore. Pat B. himself stated that he had no doubt that those votes were NOT meant for him....

As it turned out, the carelessness of those handful of people fucked up the entire world. Shame on them.


Ain't that the TRUTH!

The butterfly ballot mistake.... is the one thing that changed the results of the election....that was the real issue that made there even be a "tie" in the first place, which triggered everything else...

not this bullcrap that if Gore had won his own state, or if the supreme court hadn't stepped in and had left it to the State as it was suppose to do....

the Butterfly ballot ALONE was the real issue and the real culpret of the whole fiasco....

no question in my mind!

care

[klaatu]

I don't see a relation of those two statements .....

You can control or operate upon others.... by unfair means without Lying....???

two different sins!

hahahaha..... ;)


A salesman ( a sharp one) will use every tool at his disposal .. to the point of manipulating the customer .. doesnt neccessarily mean he is lying ....
He may be telling the customer what he wants to hear ...
I.E. A salesman can tell you that he can finance you even with bad credit, but he didnt tell you what the finance charges will be or that the interest rate is double the norm ... he is not lying...but he sure is manipulating.

If I tell you that a dictator is a bad person and wants to destroy your way of life.. so it is in our best interests to get rid of him before he does us any harm... Most of America bought into it .... not lies ..but the manipulation.

[Care4all]

A salesman ( a sharp one) will use every tool at his disposal .. to the point of manipulating the customer .. doesnt neccessarily mean he is lying ....
He may be telling the customer what he wants to hear ...
I.E. A salesman can tell you that he can finance you even with bad credit, but he didnt tell you what the finance charges will be or that the interest rate is double the norm ... he is not lying...but he sure is manipulating.

If I tell you that a dictator is a bad person and wants to destroy your way of life.. so it is in our best interests to get rid of him before he does us any harm... Most of America bought into it .... not lies ..but the manipulation.

If there was no proof that the Dictator wanted to ruin my life and this part was made up, then that's a lie....

and you did not reread the whole speech, there were MANY, MANY, MANY LIES in that speech....to focus on a "general feeling" instead of what got us to "feel" this way about the issue is short changing us, americans and what we expect of our Government imho....the TRUTH, ALWAYS......

[Care4all]

The truth must especially be expected and demanded of our Congress and Administration when we are sending our children off to be KILLED OR MAMED.

Shame on all of us...the news and the people for not asking more questions and proof from our govt before jumping in to war.... :(

[Cypress]

The butterfly ballot was the least of Gore's injustices.

The supreme court stopping the statewide recount, was an unprecendented travesty.

And the overvotes were more important than the butterfly ballot votes.

People who both punched the hole for Gore, and wrote his name in the write-in slot, did not have their votes counted.

[Cypress]

A salesman ( a sharp one) will use every tool at his disposal .. to the point of manipulating the customer .. doesnt neccessarily mean he is lying ....

Good. I'm comfortable with that assessment: Bush manipulated and misled us into an unneccessary war.

[Immanuel]

LOL...no...I am, as you know, very pro-Israel....I have no problems with them at all...just the bunch of idiots in Florida who mistakenly voted for a nazi instead of Gore, and, in so doing, basically fucked up the whole world.

If I wasn't such a nice guy, I'd give you a "3-2-1".

Immie

[Immanuel]

A salesman ( a sharp one) will use every tool at his disposal .. to the point of manipulating the customer .. doesnt neccessarily mean he is lying ....
He may be telling the customer what he wants to hear ...
I.E. A salesman can tell you that he can finance you even with bad credit, but he didnt tell you what the finance charges will be or that the interest rate is double the norm ... he is not lying...but he sure is manipulating.


She is a retired sales person. I am certain that she used every means possible to make the sale. I find it very hard to reconcile my Christian beliefs with being a salesperson. How can one profess, "Thou shall not lie" and then do it everyday in one's job?

:)

Immie

Uh Oh, that is going to get me in trouble.

[Damocles]

She is a retired sales person. I am certain that she used every means possible to make the sale. I find it very hard to reconcile my Christian beliefs with being a salesperson. How can one profess, "Thou shall not lie" and then do it everyday in one's job?

:)

Immie

Uh Oh, that is going to get me in trouble.
It is also contrary to Buddhist Principles. Hence, were I a saleperson, I would have to truly believe in the product to be able to educate people rather than manipulate them...

[Care4all]

The butterfly ballot was the least of Gore's injustices.

The supreme court stopping the statewide recount, was an unprecendented travesty.

And the overvotes were more important than the butterfly ballot votes.

People who both punched the hole for Gore, and wrote his name in the write-in slot, did not have their votes counted.


This is very true! To me, all overvotes that had the one candidate picked that was also the same candidate hand writen in, should be a vote that counts, for either side...those that checked bush and wrote his name in too!

[OrnotBitwise]

Correction .... not lies ... a very well constructed speech meant to support a preoncieved plan. Big difference...
Remember ... the Intellegence Report was not correct, Iraq once had the WMD's that he spoke of, to believe that they didnt is to ignore what Saddam did to his own people. We know this to be true.

So ... it was a very crafty manipulative speech ... and it worked ... but with terrible results.
From Merriam-Webster again:

Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

-- emphasis added. O.B.

No offense, Klaatu, but the distinction you allude to is immaterial. He was lying, either way.

[OrnotBitwise]

crafty manipulation to mislead us....
that by definition is a "lie"......note number 2.


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary






lie
16 entries found for lie. The first 10 are listed below.
To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
lie[1,intransitive verb]lie[2,noun]lie[3,verb]lie[4,noun]LieLie[1]big liegive[1,verb]lie bylie detector

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2 : to create a false or misleading impression
Woops! Looks like Care beat me to the punch. :)

[Cypress]

I dont like the word lie because it has become the standard slogan of Democrat Propganda.. , its like Franken and Moore wrote the playbook, I wish the party would take the high road and stop using it....

The bush admin knew there was no evidence Iraq had a nuke program, or had collaborative ties to al qaeda....but they said they did anyway.

If thats not a lie, I don't know what is.

[Care4all]

When I was 16-23 I was a sales person on the sales floor of a department store or Shoe store, and quite frankly I never lied or mislead the customer to buy anything.....I just informed her of the features and benefits of each product, I also got her shoe size from the back stock, and I also put the shoes on her feet if I could, to make the sale....but never, ever mislead, any customer...in fact, I lost many sales because of my honesty and telling the customer that, the shoes just didn't fit her well....

After that, I was a buyer and merchandiser and then in Product Marketing, and again...never had to lie about anything that I developed or was promoting to the retailer.

[OrnotBitwise]

I dont like the word lie because it has become the standard slogan of Democrat Propganda.. , its like Franken and Moore wrote the playbook, I wish the party would take the high road and stop using it....

The bush admin knew there was no evidence Iraq had a nuke program, or had collaborative ties to al qaeda....but they said they did anyway.

If thats not a lie, I don't know what is.
I'm not sure that I see any substantive distinction between lying, on the one hand, and manipulating people's impressions on the other. They're just different words for the same thing.

And yes, marketing and sales are fundamentally dishonest. There may be -- probably are -- acceptable levels of dishonesty, but let's not kid ourselves about distinctions that don't really exist.

[Damocles]

This is very true! To me, all overvotes that had the one candidate picked that was also the same candidate hand writen in, should be a vote that counts, for either side...those that checked bush and wrote his name in too!
I remember hearing about one small county where quite a few of these Bush votes existed, but were not counted....

[Cypress]

I'm not sure that I see any substantive distinction between lying, on the one hand, and manipulating people's impressions on the other. They're just different words for the same thing.

And yes, marketing and sales are fundamentally dishonest. There may be -- probably are -- acceptable levels of dishonesty, but let's not kid ourselves about distinctions that don't really exist.

Excellent point. Manipulating someone into buyin a lawnmower, is substantively different than manipulating a nation into a war.

[evince]

how you can read that speach adn call jit anything but lies is beyond me.

How partisan can you get people

[Cypress]

I remember hearing about one small county where quite a few of these Bush votes existed, but were not counted....


That's what the independent statewide recount showed, later.

That is all the "legally-cast" votes were counted (including overvotes and undervotes, where voter intent was clear), then Gore won the state by thousands of votes.

[Care4all]

I'm not sure that I see any substantive distinction between lying, on the one hand, and manipulating people's impressions on the other. They're just different words for the same thing.

And yes, marketing and sales are fundamentally dishonest. There may be -- probably are -- acceptable levels of dishonesty, but let's not kid ourselves about distinctions that don't really exist.


I disagree totally!

I firmly believed in the product that I created or developed... I believed in the quality of my materials, I believed in the factory I chose to develop them in and the engineers that were going to "get the graduated sizes" right when they developed the lasts to make them on, I believed in the features and benefits that we all developed and put in to the product, the shoes.....we made our NAME on COMFORT and we developed our product knowing this mission.

So when it came time to promote the product with marketing, I felt very confident that every word and arrow pointing to a feature or benefit of the product in the ad was the truth.

And when I showed this product at the trade shows, the same as above, no lies needed to sell the product, especially since my company made its name through having product with propriatory features.....features that we trademarked and registered, so that none of our competition could make the same claims....

no lying involved in making retailers to purchase the product....HONESTLY! :)

care

[Damocles]

That's what the independent statewide recount showed, later.

That is all the "legally-cast" votes were counted (including overvotes and undervotes, where voter intent was clear), then Gore won the state by thousands of votes.
Only if dimples counted. This is fundamentally guessing at intent...

[Cypress]

Only if dimples counted. This is fundamentally guessing at intent...

No, under every permutation possible. The independent consortium looked at every possible permutation of what constituted the "clear intent" of the voter, and when both the legall cast overvotes and undervotes were counted, Gore won in each case.

[Cypress]

Bush would have squeeked out a victory a statewide recount of the undervotes. But, since many of the over votes showed the clear intent of the voter for Gore, Gore would have, and should have, crushed bush

[Care4all]

I remember hearing about one small county where quite a few of these Bush votes existed, but were not counted....

surely you jest, and surely you have read about this by now?

so do you think that we should always find a way to limit the vote that people have made verses finding a way to make all votes count that can be identified, if in a recount situation? Isn't that sort of arrogant and goes against the grain of what we believe as a country, that every discernable vote, should count?
ie, you checked the box for President Bush and you also Hand Wrote President Bush in as your choice for president?

[Damocles]

surely you jest, and surely you have read about this by now?

so do you think that we should always find a way to limit the vote that people have made verses finding a way to make all votes count that can be identified, if in a recount situation? Isn't that sort of arrogant and goes against the grain of what we believe as a country, that every discernable vote, should count?
ie, you checked the box for President Bush and you also Hand Wrote President Bush in as your choice for president?
Psychic vote determination based on dimples is not verifying intent of the voter. There are more ways than one in which a dimple can be made on that ballot.

[Damocles]

Bush would have squeeked out a victory a statewide recount of the undervotes. But, since many of the over votes showed the clear intent of the voter for Gore, Gore would have, and should have, crushed bush
I have read the overvote studies, there were many who voted for two candidates and very few who both wrote in and punched Gore's name... You are describing this disingenuously. This assumed that every overvote for Gore/Browne (5420), Gore/Harris(1017), Gore/Nader (1700), Gore/Phillips (619) were 100% Gore votes... This is once again psychic determination...

[OrnotBitwise]

I disagree totally!

I firmly believed in the product that I created or developed... I believed in the quality of my materials, I believed in the factory I chose to develop them in and the engineers that were going to "get the graduated sizes" right when they developed the lasts to make them on, I believed in the features and benefits that we all developed and put in to the product, the shoes.....we made our NAME on COMFORT and we developed our product knowing this mission.

So when it came time to promote the product with marketing, I felt very confident that every word and arrow pointing to a feature or benefit of the product in the ad was the truth.

And when I showed this product at the trade shows, the same as above, no lies needed to sell the product, especially since my company made its name through having product with propriatory features.....features that we trademarked and registered, so that none of our competition could make the same claims....

no lying involved in making retailers to purchase the product....HONESTLY! :)

care
Say, rather, that lying is a big part of marketing, not that it necessarily needs to be. And there are times when believing in something too much can lead one into distorting the truth about it -- which is exactly what some of the Bush supporters will claim happened with the build up to the war on Iraq.

[evince]

Only if dimples counted. This is fundamentally guessing at intent...


No it wasnt, the chad bins were full and the people couldnt punch the hole out entirely, the dimples were the only marks for president.

How many people do you know who vote in a national election and dont vote for president.

The intent of the voter was not respected that day and the clock was run down and the intent of the voter was NEVER honored.

That is entirely UNAMERICAN!

[Care4all]

Psychic vote determination based on dimples is not verifying intent of the voter. There are more ways than one in which a dimple can be made on that ballot.

Damo,

we are NOT speaking about dimples or the "undervotes" right now...

We are talking about the "overvotes" that were thrown out by the machines becasue they were thought to be votes that were cast for two different people.

but instead, when the consortium reviewed these overvotes, many were a vote cast for Bush and then Bush's name writen in as choice of president in the "write in" spot, and many others were an choice of Gore and also Gore's name hand writen in as choice of president....

Those votes were thrown out, and never counted....when these overvotes were reviewed, it showed thousands of votes casted to Bush that should have been counted and thousands of votes casted towards Gore but not counted also.

The end tally of those votes gave Gore several thousand of votes more than Bush....

And once again, the Buchanon votes were also meant for Gore.....

Florida voters, voted for Gore... OVERWHELMINGLY....
that is not in question, in my mind, due to the above...

care

[Damocles]

No it wasnt, the chad bins were full and the people couldnt punch the hole out entirely, the dimples were the only marks for president.

How many people do you know who vote in a national election and dont vote for president.

The intent of the voter was not respected that day and the clock was run down and the intent of the voter was NEVER honored.

That is entirely UNAMERICAN!
That isn't the sole reason that Chads could be dimpled and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is. This is psychic determination plain and simple.

[Damocles]

Damo,

we are NOT speaking about dimples or the "undervotes" right now...

We are talking about the "overvotes" that were thrown out by the machines becasue they were thought to be votes that were cast for two different people.

but instead, when the consortium reviewed these overvotes, many were a vote cast for Bush and then Bush's name writen in as choice opf president in the "write in" spot, and many others were an choice of Gore and also Gore's name hand writen in as choice of president....

Those votes were thrown out, and never counted....when these overvotes were reviewed, it showed thousandso of votes casted to Bush that should have been counted and thousands of votes casted towards Gore but not counted.

The end tally of those votes gave Gore several thousand of votes more than Bush....

And once again, the Buchanon votes were also meant for Gore.....

Florida voters, voted for Gore... OVERWHELMINGLY....
that is not in question, in my mind, due to the above...

care
I read the studies on the overvotes as I stated and explained above. Very few voted twice for Gore, most voted for two candidates on those overvotes. It is psychic determination to "guess" that every one of those would be for Gore. This is once again a disingenuous means to give a candidate a victory.

[Immanuel]

"It is also contrary to Buddhist Principles. Hence, were I a saleperson, I would have to truly believe in the product to be able to educate people rather than manipulate them..."

I tried selling life insurance. Even though I believed in the product, I could not get passed the pressure to fib in order to sell it. Needless to say, I was not a very good salesperson.

Immie

[Care4all]

No it wasnt, the chad bins were full and the people couldnt punch the hole out entirely, the dimples were the only marks for president.

How many people do you know who vote in a national election and dont vote for president.

The intent of the voter was not respected that day and the clock was run down and the intent of the voter was NEVER honored.

That is entirely UNAMERICAN!


That is CORRECT, I watched the court hearing on this and the testimony from the creator of the machine, that the trays were left full, which prevented any further dimples from being pucnced, causing the excessive amounts of dimple votes...

[Care4all]

I read the studies on the overvotes as I stated and explained above. Very few voted twice for Gore, most voted for two candidates on those overvotes. It is psychic determination to "guess" that every one of those would be for Gore. This is once again a disingenuous means to give a candidate a victory.

that is not true Damo, thousands were a vote for one person...look it up...I promise you, that was the results.....

[Damocles]

That is CORRECT, I watched the court hearing on this and the testimony from the creator of the machine, that the trays were left full, which prevented any further dimples from being pucnced, causing the excessive amounts of dimple votes...
There are also other means to create dimples. Not the least of which was the "almost vote" where a user simply almost punches, but then decides against it.

This is fundamentally guessing that only one answer is evident and ignoring any other reason a chad may be dimpled. Thus my description of "psychic determination".

[Damocles]

that is not true Damo, thousands were a vote for one person...look it up...I promise you, that was the results.....
I just did look it up. Hence the numbers I actually provided. The "overvote" could not determine a victory unless it is assumed that people who voted for two candidates were voting for Gore...

[maineman]

how many of those "overvotes" had Bush as a choice?

[Care4all]

i am trying to find the article where a read this 4 years ago...when i do, i will link it damo....

found this though...
-------------------------------------------
Florida voter errors cost Gore the election

By Dennis Cauchon and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY


George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied, the first comprehensive examination of the ballots shows. However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes. That's enough to have decisively won Florida and the White House. Gore's best chance to win was lost before the ballots were counted, the study shows. Voters' confusion with ballot instruction and design and voting machines appears to have changed the course of U.S. history.

[Damocles]

Bush and another or Bush and Gore? Ballots with both Bush and Gore as the overvote selections were numbered around 5800...

[Damocles]

i am trying to find the article where a read this 4 years ago...when i do, i will link it damo....

found this though...
-------------------------------------------
Florida voter errors cost Gore the election

By Dennis Cauchon and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY


George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied, the first comprehensive examination of the ballots shows. However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes. That's enough to have decisively won Florida and the White House. Gore's best chance to win was lost before the ballots were counted, the study shows. Voters' confusion with ballot instruction and design and voting machines appears to have changed the course of U.S. history.
And I gave you quite a few examples of where those numbers come from by showing examples of the actual number of overvotes with two candidates.. Very few had two votes for Gore, most had two candidates and were assumed by the study to have wanted Gore.

[Care4all]

Damo, how can a dimple be part of an OVERVOTE?

An overvote involes checking the spot for president and also writing in a candidate's name....

if there was a "dimple" on the overvote, then the name writen in would have been counted as the SINGLE vote...right?

[maineman]

Bush and another or Bush and Gore? Ballots with both Bush and Gore as the overvote selections were numbered around 5800...

just bush and another.... toss out all the bush and gore overvotes...how many had gore and someone else versus how many had bush and someone else?

[Care4all]

I know what I read a few years back and I know what you are reading now on the net about it, and they are NOT, one and the same Damo....so, let me see if I can do some sleuthing and find the article I read about it and see who actually is rewriting history here....?

[Damocles]

Damo, how can a dimple be part of an OVERVOTE?

An overvote involes checking the spot for president and also writing in a candidate's name....

if there was a "dimple" on the overvote, then the name writen in would have been counted as the SINGLE vote...right?
They weren't. However if you use this type of psychic determination they should be... If somebody dimpled for one then realized they were on the wrong area then voted for another it would be an overvote... Because from what you all state dimples can only be caused by somebody attempting to vote but they can't because the thing was full!

Anyway, what I am stating is that BOTH dimples and overvotes are psychic determination of voting by guessing and assumption. You assume that there is no other reason a Dimple can be cast other than the bin being full, you assume that overvotes were for the candidate that you want... Both are psychic determination and would not be admissable as a real determination of voting.

I read the overvote studies, the number of overvotes that were "counted" for Gore were votes cast for two candidates, some of which were for both Bush and Gore... It is simply guessing to determine that votes were for Gore and that only Rs can stack ballots, especially in heavily Democrat counties where most of the poll workers were Democrats...

[Cypress]

Overvotes weren't simply the ones that were punched for gore, and someone also wrote gore in the write-in spot.

Examples of overvotes, where the intent of the voter is clear:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/111201/Lostvotes/Without_overvotes_Gor.shtml

St. Petersburg Times

"Gore could have picked up 2,182 votes last November on overvotes where voter intent is clear, and Bush would have gained 1,309 votes, the media companies' analysis shows."

[Damocles]

I know what I read a few years back and I know what you are reading now on the net about it, and they are NOT, one and the same Damo....so, let me see if I can do some sleuthing and find the article I read about it and see who actually is rewriting history here....?
Go back and read the post where I put the numbers in the brackets next to the votes. I only posted a few of those... The number of overcast ballots that were "counted" for Gore in the study that I read were ballots cast with two candidates punched. Counting those for Gore is psychic determination.

[Cypress]

I read the overvote studies, the number of overvotes that were "counted" for Gore were votes cast for two candidates, some of which were for both Bush and Gore...

Look at the graphic examples I provided.

Overvotes were rejected because of extra markings.

For example, where somebody accidently marked the spot for bush, then realized their mistake and crossed it out in pen, and then marked the spot for Gore and circled it for emphasis.

The voter intent is clear, even though technically, the "voted" for both candidates.

The legal standard in flordia is "clear intent" of the voter -- not whether they made a techinical mistake.

[Damocles]

I read the overvote studies, the number of overvotes that were "counted" for Gore were votes cast for two candidates, some of which were for both Bush and Gore...

Look at the graphic examples I provided.

Overvotes were rejected because of extra markings.

For example, where somebody accidently marked the spot for bush, then realized their mistake and crossed it out in pen, and then marked the spot for Gore and circled it for emphasis.

The voter intent is clear, even though technically, the "voted" for both candidates.

The legal standard in flordia is "clear intent" of the voter -- not whether they made a techinical mistake.
The new legal standard in Florida is that. In your own article it states so. It was not at that time...

From your aticle:



Florida has a new, broader definition of a "clear indication of a voter's choice," to be applied the next time a manual recount takes place.

[Damocles]

Plus Cypress, you stated that Gore would have "killed" Bush... A couple hundred is not "killed"...

I'll admit he would have won. In fact, I'll admit I wish he had. But I don't want people guessing at votes from dimples...

[Cypress]

Florida has a new, broader definition of a "clear indication of a voter's choice," to be applied the next time a manual recount takes place.


Right: they refined the law. They didn't change it.

clear intent of the voter was always the standard - as it is in most other states.

Florida just updated it, to make it broader and more specific. the old law was too ambigious.

[Cypress]

Plus Cypress, you stated that Gore would have "killed" Bush... A couple hundred is not "killed"...

I'll admit he would have won. In fact, I'll admit I wish he had. But I don't want people guessing at votes from dimples...

you're right. I was being lazy in my choice of words.

[maineman]

[QUOTE=Damocles]Plus Cypress, you stated that Gore would have "killed" Bush... A couple hundred is not "killed"...
[QUOTE]

I agree...and find it really really .... "funny" is not the right word...."telling", I guess, that even though Bush lost the popular vote by a half a million votes and "won" Florida by only 537 in an election that is still in dispute, the Neocons, nonetheless, claimed such a "victory" as some overwhelming mandate.

[Damocles]

Florida has a new, broader definition of a "clear indication of a voter's choice," to be applied the next time a manual recount takes place.


Right: they refined the law. They didn't change it.

clear intent of the voter was always the standard - as it is in most other states.

Florida just updated it, to make it broader and more specific. the old law was too ambigious.
Which was problematic. Hence they redefined things to make it very clear next time. Like I stated. I think he would have won if he had simply requested a statewide handcount rather than just those counties... There would have been less wiggle room for somebody if that was what he requested.

I do believe that vote-stacking can take place at the hands of Ds as well as of Rs and that the most likely culprits in heavily Democrat counties are not Rs as they would be mistrusted and watched....

[Cypress]

Which was problematic. Hence they redefined things to make it very clear next time. Like I stated. I think he would have won if he had simply requested a statewide handcount rather than just those counties... There would have been less wiggle room for somebody if that was what he requested.

I do believe that vote-stacking can take place at the hands of Ds as well as of Rs and that the most likely culprits in heavily Democrat counties are not Rs as they would be mistrusted and watched....


Right. Gore followed a flawed strategy in simply demanding a limited recount of undervotes.

When the state supreme court mandated a statewide recount, it is entirely within the realm of possiblity that a legal challenge would have ultimately inclued the overvotes.

In the final analysis, its not up to Gore or Bush to decide who gets to win the election, or set the standards. Its the american people's voice that should be respected - more people voted for Gore, if you include all legally cast votes (which wasn't done).

[Damocles]

Right. Gore followed a flawed strategy in simply demanding a limited recount of undervotes.

When the state supreme court mandated a statewide recount, it is entirely within the realm of possiblity that a legal challenge would have ultimately inclued the overvotes.

In the final analysis, its not up to Gore or Bush to decide who gets to win the election, or set the standards. Its the american people's voice that should be respected - more people voted for Gore, if you include all legally cast votes (which wasn't done).
It wasn't just that. Had he requested it that way it would have been Bush looking all impudent and whiney if he had not wanted that recount to take place. Instead it had the appearance of weighting it in his direction and made him appear less then honest in his approach. Perception means things in politics. Had he lost regardless after a statewide recount he likely would have had overwhelming support in 2004 to run again...

So, even if Bush managed to pull it out (I think likely in a statewide as many of the heavily R places would probably have mucked around as I believe the heavily D places would, and probably did, for Gore...), likely we would be saying "President Gore" about now...

:D

[maineman]

and tying it back to the beginning of the thread...is there any doubt that, under a Gore administration, America's response to 9/11 - assuming the AQ plot would have even succeeded - would have been infinitely more appropriate and would not have led us to the brink of the abyss the way the end of times neocon fundie assholes in the bush administration have?

[klaatu]

I dont like the word lie because it has become the standard slogan of Democrat Propganda.. , its like Franken and Moore wrote the playbook, I wish the party would take the high road and stop using it....

The bush admin knew there was no evidence Iraq had a nuke program, or had collaborative ties to al qaeda....but they said they did anyway.

If thats not a lie, I don't know what is.


Im not talking about Bush or his admninistration.. IM TALKING ABOUT THE DEMS!!! GET IT?

[maineman]

some dems claimed that Saddam had nukes. A majority of congressional dems did NOT want to give Bush the authorization to start a war....

no dems advocated invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq (considering that was precisely what OBL told the islamic world we WOULD do)

[klaatu]

If there was no proof that the Dictator wanted to ruin my life and this part was made up, then that's a lie....

and you did not reread the whole speech, there were MANY, MANY, MANY LIES in that speech....to focus on a "general feeling" instead of what got us to "feel" this way about the issue is short changing us, americans and what we expect of our Government imho....the TRUTH, ALWAYS......


Im not arguing for lies or manipulation.. Im just telling you that there is a difference.. this is why the President has gotten away with it.. because they used manipulation tactics ....

ANd yes the TRUTH ALWAYS... but if you believe we have been given the truth ALWAYS up until Bush.. then you are being very partisan and naive ....

and oh claravoyant one ... I did read the entire speech .... ;)

[LadyT]

and tying it back to the beginning of the thread...is there any doubt that, under a Gore administration, America's response to 9/11 - assuming the AQ plot would have even succeeded - would have been infinitely more appropriate and would not have led us to the brink of the abyss the way the end of times neocon fundie a$sholes in the bush administration have?

No, no doubt at all

[OrnotBitwise]

No, no doubt at all
The more intelligent and effective the response, the more likely it is that some of the more militaristic wackos will label it "appeasement" or "defeat" or "cutting and running."

;)

[maineman]

I love it when these neocons praise Reagan as their demi-God and conveniently forget that he is the ULTIMATE cut and runner....

his running away from Beirut without so much as an attempt to get any retribution from Hezbollah for the 250 dead marines is inexcusable

[Damocles]

I love it when these neocons praise Reagan as their demi-God and conveniently forget that he is the ULTIMATE cut and runner....

his running away from Beirut without so much as an attempt to get any retribution from Hezbollah for the 250 dead marines is inexcusable
According to books written on the subject, the problem wasn't the will it was the knowledge. At that time they were unsure exactly who had done the deed... A more foolish man would have begun something prematurely based on faulty evidence, a more wise man waited for more information and recognized his own mistake.

[maineman]

spin spin spin....Reagan cut and run. Just fucking deal with it.

[Damocles]

spin spin spin....Reagan cut and run. Just fucking deal with it.
It is actually the number 1 thing that you'll find Rs to mention that they didn't like about Reagan. The list of likes is far longer, but you'll hear that one often.

[Cypress]

I'm consistent: Reagan made the right call redeploying out of lebanon. There was no vital national security interest at stake, and staying there would just create more enemies of the United States.

Its the same reason I support redeployment out of Iraq.

And hezbollah is a regional player with regional goals. The only reason they attacked the united states was our involvment in lebanon in the 1980s, and our support of the Israeli occupation of southern lebanon in the 19902. In short, if we stay out of lebanese affairs, we won't have a problem with hezbollah.

[maineman]

I'm consistent: Reagan made the right call redeploying out of lebanon. There was no vital national security interest at stake, and staying there would just create more enemies of the United States.

Its the same reason I support redeployment out of Iraq.

And hezbollah is a regional player with regional goals. The only reason they attacked the united states was our involvment in lebanon in the 1980s, and our support of the Israeli occupation of southern lebanon in the 19902. In short, if we stay out of lebanese affairs, we won't have a problem with hezbollah.

I agree wholeheartedly. I just get sick of republicans calling Murtha a cut and run traitor while simultaneously deifying Reagan when he did the exact same thing.