Discussion:
Bush Lied To Senators About Drones That Could Hit US
(too old to reply)
First Maje
2003-12-18 04:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Senator says briefing claimed drones could hit US
Bush did not lie.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Alan G
2003-12-18 12:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Senator says briefing claimed drones could hit US
Bush did not lie.
Only when he kept his mouth shut.
He's a politiciaan FFS!
First Maje
2003-12-18 15:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
Senator says briefing claimed drones could hit US
Bush did not lie.
Only when he kept his mouth shut.
He's a politiciaan FFS!
In general I would agree with you. But when the public does not have a
need to know something, Bush is justified in not divulging anything.
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.

That is not lying.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Alan G
2003-12-18 17:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
In general I would agree with you. But when the public does not have a
need to know something, Bush is justified in not divulging anything.
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
Yes it is.
First Maje
2003-12-19 02:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
In general I would agree with you. But when the public does not have a
need to know something, Bush is justified in not divulging anything.
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
Yes it is.
If you do not have a need to know, then the person you are asking has
every right to tell you anything you will believe.

That's the price you pay for expecting to know something you have no
need to know.

The alternative is that any twat can force the president to divulge
anything they want him to divulge.

That is clearly ridiculous, and you are ridiculous for expecting it to
happen.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Alan G
2003-12-19 11:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
In general I would agree with you. But when the public does not have a
need to know something, Bush is justified in not divulging anything.
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
Yes it is.
If you do not have a need to know, then the person you are asking has
every right to tell you anything you will believe.
Lying
Post by First Maje
That's the price you pay for expecting to know something you have no
need to know.
Who decides there is no need to know?
Post by First Maje
The alternative is that any twat can force the president to divulge
anything they want him to divulge.
If you don't know the facts then how can you make a reasoned choice
when you elect the twat to run things?
Post by First Maje
That is clearly ridiculous, and you are ridiculous for expecting it to
happen.
I don't expect it to happen. I just recognise your boy is an
accomplished liar.
First Maje
2003-12-19 15:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
If you do not have a need to know, then the person you are asking has
every right to tell you anything you will believe.
Lying
Call it what you want, it is justified nonetheless.
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
That's the price you pay for expecting to know something you have no
need to know.
Who decides there is no need to know?
Certainly not a bunch of leftist queers.

The answer is that the people responsible for national security decide
who has a need to know.
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
The alternative is that any twat can force the president to divulge
anything they want him to divulge.
If you don't know the facts then how can you make a reasoned choice
when you elect the twat to run things?
You don't seriojsly believe that people make a "reasoned choice" when
they elect someone, do you?

The anwser to your question on the idealist level is that the
electorate evaluates candidates on matters of integrity and character,
because they must trust their leaders to do the best things for them.
Post by Alan G
Post by First Maje
That is clearly ridiculous, and you are ridiculous for expecting it to
happen.
I don't expect it to happen. I just recognise your boy is an
accomplished liar.
Yes, he is indeed. But that's because he is an accomplished
politician.

That does not make him a criminal.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Graham Innocent
2003-12-19 14:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
But when the public does not have a
need to know something,
Bush is justified in not divulging anything.
Who decides ? if the release of the information might affect voter's
support for Bush , surely he can't ?
Post by First Maje
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
ROFLMAO

next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
First Maje
2003-12-19 18:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
ROFLMAO
Obviously you don't understand the doctrine of "Need To Know",
Post by Graham Innocent
next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
Next you'll be telling us 'Appeasement is Peace'.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Alan G
2003-12-19 20:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
ROFLMAO
Obviously you don't understand the doctrine of "Need To Know",
Post by Graham Innocent
next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
Next you'll be telling us 'Appeasement is Peace'.
Texas
Room 101.
Graham Innocent
2003-12-19 23:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Obviously you don't understand the doctrine of "Need To Know",
You don't seem to either. When your president is making up threats
(death drones that can reach america indeed. He must think you were
born yesterday) to get you to support a war, you need to know about
it. When a military officer is refusing to answer a question regarding
an on-going operation or a new piece of military hardware, you don't.
Stop parroting that phrase everytime somebody points out that Bush was
lying.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
Next you'll be telling us 'Appeasement is Peace'.
Really? then why do you so fervently support an administration which
is still selling weapons to dictatorships all around the world, but
_isn't_ threatening to attack North Korea ?

BTW, Why have you put your reply in quotes when you aren't quoting
anything ?
Didn't you catch the reference to Orwell's 1984 ?
First Maje
2003-12-20 19:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Innocent
ou don't seem to either. When your president is making up threats
(death drones that can reach america indeed. He must think you were
born yesterday) to get you to support a war, you need to know about
it.
Why?

When a military officer is refusing to answer a question regarding
Post by Graham Innocent
an on-going operation or a new piece of military hardware, you don't.
Stop parroting that phrase everytime somebody points out that Bush was
lying.
I will continue to point out the valid justifications for Bush's
conduct.
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
Next you'll be telling us 'Appeasement is Peace'.
Really? then why do you so fervently support an administration which
is still selling weapons to dictatorships all around the world, but
_isn't_ threatening to attack North Korea ?
How do you know that Bush isn't threatening to attack N. Korea?


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Graham Innocent
2003-12-21 17:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Why?
Let's get this straight, you're saying you don't understand why it's
important that the US public should know when their president has been
making up stories detailing non-existant, imaginary threats, to
persuade them to support a war ?
Post by First Maje
I will continue to point out the valid justifications for Bush's
conduct.
Go ahead, tell us. Explain why you think it's OK to tell an electorate
they're being threatened with something non-existant to get them to
support their belligerent foreign policy.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
Next you'll be telling us 'Appeasement is Peace'.
Really? then why do you so fervently support an administration which
is still selling weapons to dictatorships all around the world, but
_isn't_ threatening to attack North Korea ?
How do you know that Bush isn't threatening to attack N. Korea?
LOL. Now you're fantasizing 'secret' policies to try and rationalise
the obvious contradictions in the Bush administration's stances. At
some point, you must've made a decision to support Bush _regardless of
what he does_. Why ?
First Maje
2003-12-21 18:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Why?
Let's get this straight, you're saying you don't understand why it's
important that the US public should know when their president has been
making up stories detailing non-existant, imaginary threats, to
persuade them to support a war ?
People don't care as long as what the president does is in their
interests.
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
I will continue to point out the valid justifications for Bush's
conduct.
Go ahead, tell us. Explain why you think it's OK to tell an electorate
they're being threatened with something non-existant to get them to
support their belligerent foreign policy.
People don't care as long as what the president does is in their
interests.
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
How do you know that Bush isn't threatening to attack N. Korea?
LOL. Now you're fantasizing 'secret' policies to try and rationalise
the obvious contradictions in the Bush administration's stances.
Bill Clinton was indicted for all sorts of criminal acts, including
lying to a Grand Jury. He was even impeached for those crimes. Yet he
was not convicted. Explain that.

Some say it was because no one wanted to take the risk of having Gore
for president. But the real reason is that the president is given a
lot of slack to do his job, and even misconduct in office is not
sufficient to interrupt his duties as leader of the free world.
Post by Graham Innocent
At some point, you must've made a decision to support Bush _regardless of
what he does_. Why ?
Because I trust him to do what is in my interest. It is not my job to
question his judgement on a microscale.

Neither you, I or 99 44/100% of the human race has any clue what is
really going on behind the scenes in the world today. I am not going
to make up "what if" scenarios to make my point - it should be obvious
to anyone who knows that the world is filled with crazy people who
have their fingers on weapons systems that can end life on the planet
in a heatbeat.

Hussein brought invasion on himself. He provided the motive and
opportunity that gave the Coalition a ready excuse to invade and
thereby set up a strong military presence in the Middle East, which is
about one step from collapsing into anarchy.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

Complete, fully thought through, professional, well-executed
violence never leads to more violence because, you see,
afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead.
Not 'on trial,' not 'reeducated,' not 'nurtured back into the
bosom of love.' Dead. D-E-A-D. Well, you get the idea.
-- USMC General Hawley
Graham Innocent
2003-12-21 22:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Let's get this straight, you're saying you don't understand why it's
important that the US public should know when their president has been
making up stories detailing non-existant, imaginary threats, to
persuade them to support a war ?
People don't care as long as what the president does is in their
interests.
Being lied to by elected officials who are trying to con you into
supporting a _very_ expensive invasion which benefits companies they
have financial ties to is not in the public's interest.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Go ahead, tell us. Explain why you think it's OK to tell an electorate
they're being threatened with something non-existant to get them to
support their belligerent foreign policy.
People don't care as long as what the president does is in their
interests.
Sounding like a stuck record now.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
LOL. Now you're fantasizing 'secret' policies to try and rationalise
the obvious contradictions in the Bush administration's stances.
Bill Clinton was indicted for all sorts of criminal acts, including
lying to a Grand Jury. He was even impeached for those crimes. Yet he
was not convicted. Explain that.
Why should I ? I'm not a Clinton supporter.
Post by First Maje
Some say it was because no one wanted to take the risk of having Gore
for president. But the real reason is that the president is given a
lot of slack to do his job, and even misconduct in office is not
sufficient to interrupt his duties as leader of the free world.
The US president isn't the leader of the 'free world' he's the chief
representative of the American people in the administration of the US
federal government.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
At some point, you must've made a decision to support Bush _regardless of
what he does_. Why ?
Because I trust him to do what is in my interest. It is not my job to
question his judgement on a microscale.
Why do you trust him ? you know he lies to you. He's spent a _lot_ of
your tax dollars, and gotten hundreds of young americans killed. A few
corporations that members of his administration have connections with
, and donated to the Bush campaign, got sweet 'pork-barrel' deals.
None of this is in your interest.
Post by First Maje
Neither you, I or 99 44/100% of the human race has any clue what is
really going on behind the scenes in the world today.
Well, some of us are more clued up than others. I'll give you a clue,
the people who think 'Its OK for representatives in a democracy to lie
to the public purely for the purpose of winning support for a policy
which benefits them financially' are _not_ in the 'have a clue' club.
Post by First Maje
I am not going
to make up "what if" scenarios to make my point - it should be obvious
to anyone who knows that the world is filled with crazy people who
have their fingers on weapons systems that can end life on the planet
in a heatbeat.
Well, Saddam Hussein clearly _didn't_ have access to any weapons which
could 'end life on the planet in a heartbeat'. Another lie you fell
for.
Post by First Maje
Hussein brought invasion on himself. He provided the motive and
opportunity that gave the Coalition a ready excuse to invade and
thereby set up a strong military presence in the Middle East, which is
about one step from collapsing into anarchy.
Since you invaded, yes..
First Maje
2003-12-21 23:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Innocent
Being lied to by elected officials who are trying to con you into
supporting a _very_ expensive invasion which benefits companies they
have financial ties to is not in the public's interest.
That's a loaded statement. Americans do not believe that commie
bullshit.
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
People don't care as long as what the president does is in their
interests.
Sounding like a stuck record now.
The truth is sometimes boring to leftist queers.
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Bill Clinton was indicted for all sorts of criminal acts, including
lying to a Grand Jury. He was even impeached for those crimes. Yet he
was not convicted. Explain that.
Why should I ? I'm not a Clinton supporter.
You sure sound like a FOB.
Post by Graham Innocent
The US president isn't the leader of the 'free world'
That;'s where you are wrong.
Post by Graham Innocent
Why do you trust him ?
Because I saw him in action first hand as governor of Texas.
Post by Graham Innocent
you know he lies to you.
Your parents lied to you. Your employer lies to you. Your spouse lies
to you. Your children lie to you. Your colleages lie to you. Your
friends lie to you. Your vendors lie to you.

Why single out the president as someone who must not lie to you?
Post by Graham Innocent
He's spent a _lot_ of
your tax dollars, and gotten hundreds of young americans killed.
There is a price to defending your strategic interests. But cowardice
has an even greater price.
Post by Graham Innocent
A few corporations that members of his administration have connections with
, and donated to the Bush campaign, got sweet 'pork-barrel' deals.
None of this is in your interest.
That is such a limp strawman I am not going to indulge you by
defending. Suffice it to say that these "few corporations" have all
the business they need without having to start a war to get more.
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Neither you, I or 99 44/100% of the human race has any clue what is
really going on behind the scenes in the world today.
Well, some of us are more clued up than others. I'll give you a clue,
the people who think 'Its OK for representatives in a democracy
BZZZ! TILT!

There's that bullshit word again.

You have just become irrelevant by attempting to hide your lack of
understanding behind it.

There is no such thing as "democracy" in the world today. Anyway, even
if there were, it is one step from tyranny, as Plato pointed out in
The Republic, Book XIII.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Complete, fully thought through, professional, well-executed
violence never leads to more violence because, you see,
afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead.
Not 'on trial,' not 'reeducated,' not 'nurtured back into the
bosom of love.' Dead. D-E-A-D. Well, you get the idea."
-- USMC General Hawley
Graham Innocent
2003-12-22 09:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Being lied to by elected officials who are trying to con you into
supporting a _very_ expensive invasion which benefits companies they
have financial ties to is not in the public's interest.
That's a loaded statement. Americans do not believe that commie
bullshit.
Well, you may not, but I can assure you that many americans do. And it
isn't Bullshit. He did lie, repeatedly (but you seem to think that's
OK for some mysterious reason) and his familly and cabinet members do
have links to companies which won very lucrative contracts which
weren't put up for competitive tender. Cheney still gets a salary from
Haliburton for god's sake !
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
People don't care as long as what the president does is in their
interests.
Sounding like a stuck record now.
The truth is sometimes boring to leftist queers.
I'm not gay or left wing. You're just making a fool of yourself with
all this ranting about left-wing homosexuals.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Bill Clinton was indicted for all sorts of criminal acts, including
lying to a Grand Jury. He was even impeached for those crimes. Yet he
was not convicted. Explain that.
Why should I ? I'm not a Clinton supporter.
You sure sound like a FOB.
What an intelligent response.. No I'm not a Clinton supporter.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
The US president isn't the leader of the 'free world'
That;'s where you are wrong.
What ? did they hold elections and not tell me ? the US president runs
the US federal government, nothing else.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Why do you trust him ?
Because I saw him in action first hand as governor of Texas.
Post by Graham Innocent
you know he lies to you.
Your parents lied to you. Your employer lies to you. Your spouse lies
to you. Your children lie to you. Your colleages lie to you. Your
friends lie to you. Your vendors lie to you.
None of the above ever tried to convince me that it was OK for them to
kill a familly down the street because the father of said familly was
planning to kill me. Can't you see the difference ?
Post by First Maje
Why single out the president as someone who must not lie to you?
Because he has far more power and the actions he was trying to excuse
by lying involved thousands of deaths.
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
He's spent a _lot_ of
your tax dollars, and gotten hundreds of young americans killed.
There is a price to defending your strategic interests. But cowardice
has an even greater price.
What was the strategic interest here ?
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
A few corporations that members of his administration have connections with
, and donated to the Bush campaign, got sweet 'pork-barrel' deals.
None of this is in your interest.
That is such a limp strawman I am not going to indulge you by
defending. Suffice it to say that these "few corporations" have all
the business they need without having to start a war to get more.
Really ? then explain why the company that _Dick Cheney still receives
a salary from_ felt it had to defraud the US taxpayer out of more
money by submitting false bills for fuel ?
Post by First Maje
There is no such thing as "democracy" in the world today. Anyway, even
if there were, it is one step from tyranny, as Plato pointed out in
The Republic, Book XIII.
ROTFLMAO !

So tell us all what you prefer to democracy.. Constitutional Republic
as envisioned by the US founders ? you certainly don't live in one of
those..

Have you actually read all of Plato's republic ? do you seriously want
to live in the realm he describes ?
First Maje
2003-12-22 17:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Being lied to by elected officials who are trying to con you into
supporting a _very_ expensive invasion which benefits companies they
have financial ties to is not in the public's interest.
That's a loaded statement. Americans do not believe that commie
bullshit.
Well, you may not, but I can assure you that many americans do.
"Many"? How "many"? Your statement is just more commie bullshit.

Here's the truth - see below.

---

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Americans support war in Iraq 2-to-1, poll finds
By Donald Lambro

[excerpted]

Americans believe 2-to-1 that going to war in Iraq was the right
decision according to a national survey.

A poll of 1,001 adults conducted during three days last week for
the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs found increasing support
for President Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

The AP poll found that Americans by a substantial margin believe
war was the right course of action. Sixty-seven percent said the Bush
administration made the right decision in going to war with Iraq.

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of the
president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism, a
jump from the 54 percent who expressed such views earlier this month.
The poll's margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.

Notably, seven in 10 Americans said they believed the war was an
important part of the battle against terrorism and not a distraction
from that effort.

The poll also found that 49 percent believed the war in Iraq had
made future terrorist attacks in the United States less likely,
compared with 40 percent who said more likely.




--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Complete, fully thought through, professional, well-executed
violence never leads to more violence because, you see,
afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead.
Not 'on trial,' not 'reeducated,' not 'nurtured back into the
bosom of love.' Dead. D-E-A-D. Well, you get the idea."
-- USMC General Hawley
Graham Innocent
2003-12-22 23:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Post by Graham Innocent
Well, you may not, but I can assure you that many americans do.
"Many"? How "many"? Your statement is just more commie bullshit.
Here's the truth - see below.
LOL. You've just provided me with a link that shows that _1 in 3_
americans didn't support Bush, in support of your claim that all
americans support Bush.

I was thinking of killfiling you, but I'm not going to. You're too
entertaining.

Graham Innocent
2003-12-19 14:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
But when the public does not have a
need to know something,
Bush is justified in not divulging anything.
Who decides ? if the release of the information might affect voter's
support for Bush , surely he can't ?
Post by First Maje
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
ROFLMAO

next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
First Maje
2003-12-19 18:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Innocent
Post by First Maje
He is even justified in promulgating disinformation.
That is not lying.
ROFLMAO
Obviously you don't understand the doctrine of "Need To Know",
Post by Graham Innocent
next you'll telling us 'War is Peace'
Next you'll be telling us 'Appeasement is Peace'.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Paul Hyett
2003-12-18 07:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Maje
Senator says briefing claimed drones could hit US
Bush did not lie.
But could the same be said about those who provided him with the info?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Email to pahyett[AT]activist[DOT]demon[DOT]co[DOT]uk
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...