Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Vern Green wrote:

> How can you accuratly determine if you are lied to when the only 
> document you are using is trying to make the point that you were lied 
> to?

That's one of the best ways to find out, isn't it?


> I don't see you posting anything that might support an alternative point 
> of view about these supposed lies. You are spending your time looking at 
> people who essentially support your point of view. The point of view 
> that Bush Lied, People Died.

Well, we know that people died.  Now we just want to know if Bush lied. 
Who should I look to for damning information - evidence that Bush lied? 
The Republican party?  I don't think that will help any.  Mother Jones 
magazine?  Apparently, yes, they do have some good information.  It was 
something that you studied and could find nothing wrong with.  You have 
given me no reason to doubt any of the information they presented.


> The main piece of biased falsehood these groups like to talk about is 
> that the only reason we went into Iraq was because of weapons of mass 
> destruction, when in truth, there were 20 some odd OTHER reasons Bush 
> gave to ousting Saddam. Look at the motherjones site and see if they 
> mention those. I saw no mention of the other reasons.

We are interested in the lying aspect.  It isn't ok to lie once if you 
tell the truth 20 times, at least not in my book.  The President should 
tell the truth every time when he is making a case for war.  He should lie 
zero times.


> Did Bush lie? Honestly I don't know, you don't know, MotherJones, ABC, 
> CNN, nor anyone except for Bush and some of his aids knows for sure.

We can gather evidence.  I think the case is very convincing that there 
was a pattern of deception.


> The point here is that you are so convinced, after reading your 
> propaganda, that Bush lied, that you are unwilling to look at anything 
> beyond the narrow focus of whether he lied or not. That is troubling 
> since there is little evidence that you are attempting to inform 
> yourself as to the truth.

I don't know what you are talking about.  When the concern is "did Bush 
lie" then I am not interested in reading about how many people Saddam 
killed in the 1980s.  That doesn't mean I am not interested in other 
topics, it just means that they are irrelevant.


> One last thing, if this was a timeline of the lies of the Bush 
> administration in regards to Iraq, as you and the web site suggest, then 
> why bring up the submarine incident? That is a totally unrelated and 
> speculative incident that really had no place in the timeline.

I'm not sure why that is there.  I guess the idea is that Bush was 
allowing US military equipment to be used for the entertainment of 
powerful friends in the oil industry.  Twelve of 16 civilians on board the 
sub when it hit the fishing boat were in the Texas oil industry and some 
of them were actually at the controls when the vessels collided.  Maybe 
the argument is "if Bush could allow this to happen, and he would attempt 
to conceal it from us, why wouldn't he use our military to help to promote 
interests of big oil companies and then lie about that?"  But maybe you 
are right and maybe it doesn't really fit in the timeline.

It's funny to think that Bush would do that, but then he and his ilk 
attack Clinton for letting donors stay in the Lincoln bedroom!  What a 
hypcritical lying bastard Bush is!

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion