Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

[demsformd]

I suported the war on humanitarian ideas...I am a liberal internationalist, I feel that we have a vital interest to ensure that freedom is created throughout the world.

Still, there is little evidence that Hussein has any WMD, which are basically only nuckes. Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Joe Biden says that there is no possibility that Iraq had that capacity but Bush tried to scare us with a story of uranium that they never got.

Ok, look if there are WMD we should have found them by now. We no longer have guards that know we are coming. We have gone to all the places we thought had the WMD and guess what, there is nothing there. And if Hussein had them, why didn't he use them? From what I read during the time of the debate, the conservatives here said that the reason we could have WMD was because we would only use them in a severe emergency while Hussein was crazy and use them whenever. WMD was never a big issue for support of the war but it is a big issue when our president lies and exagerrates the threat that another nation poses just because not enough Americans or foreign nations are backing the administration.

The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it.

As for Clinton, what gives conservatives the right to ask him about his sexual relationships with women while he is on the stand?

 

[Bruzilla]

"The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it."

C'mon Dems... I know you're not that dumb! They are all reporting on the same story, which was the original story issued by the BBC.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
"The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it."

C'mon Dems... I know you're not that dumb! They are all reporting on the same story, which was the original story issued by the BBC.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88470,00.html

Should be interesting to see what happens.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by SmallTown
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88470,00.html

Should be interesting to see what happens.

ST, it doesn't matter what we say that brings Lynch's story into question. These conservatives are just going to whip out the patriotism card call you, me, Kucinich and any Democrat a pinko Commie and then yell about how "we should know better than that." After all, the whole thing came down to political affilation and had nothing to do with the principles that some Democrats hold.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by demsformd
The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found.

Well THAT'S a relief! I, for one, am thrilled that that girl was never captured or tortured. Or do you just mean that her rescue was fabricated and she's still over there? Or does she even exist at all? Please clarify.

As for Clinton, what gives conservatives the right to ask him about his sexual relationships with women while he is on the stand?

Apparently you've forgotten just exactly WHY he had to give a deposition in the first place.

It's people like you, Dems, that give lawyers a bad name. You have no concept of facts, no concept of history, you lie, you distort, you believe other lies and distortions, you have vendettas that skew your perceptions.

Then to top it all off, you claim to be an advocate of women's rights, yet you can't even remember WHY Clinton had to raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth in the first place. It's frightening, it really is.

Why can't Republicans get past Clinton? Because people like you still worship the ground that criminal walks on, that's why.

 

[vraiblonde]

And not only that, but you're a LAWYER saying it's okay for someone to commit perjury!

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's people like you, Dems, that give lawyers a bad name. You have no concept of facts, no concept of history, you lie, you distort, you believe other lies and distortions, you have vendettas that skew your perceptions.

Then to top it all off, you claim to be an advocate of women's rights, yet you can't even remember WHY Clinton had to raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth in the first place. It's frightening, it really is.

Do you know what vrai, whenever someone disagrees with you, you immediately say that they distorted the truth and go on your rant like you did here. My dear lady, I have a different opinion than yours. I come to it from my view of things while you come to it from yours. Whenever you say something that I do not like, I do not rant and rave about how you lie, distort the truth, have no concept for this or that. Instead I provide my reasoning. You can choose to disagree with it but to go on and rant like you did just shows the lack of substance and profound thought on your part.

You know what, I am damn proud to be a lawyer. It has done great things for me in my life and the lives of others. If vrai we have such a bad name why don't you get off your back side, go to school for an extra three years, pass the bar, and then practice the way that you think that lawyers should? Do something about us being so bad rather than just sitting on the sideline and criticizing like a Monday Morning Quarterback. Make a difference yourself rather than saying how I or any other lawyer gives us all a bad name.

As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation. Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him.

 

[SamSpade]

Originally posted by demsformd


As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation.

Yeah? Name some. Name recent ones. Heck tell me about ancient ones.

Another thing - you don't make something right, because other people do it. Why does anyone think this is a defense? It doesn't work for children - "but mommy, all the other kids do it" - why does it work, in your mind, for you? You think it's gonna make me EXCUSE this kind of behavior, because someone ELSE did it TOO?

Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him.

Yeah THAT makes sense. People hated him, because other people loved him. Keep practicing law, because you're a lousy sociologist.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by demsformd
Still, there is little evidence that Hussein has any WMD, which are basically only nuckes.

Which defintion of WMD are you using? I was under the impression that WMD include things like Bio-Weapons, and Chemical Weapons as well. Anything that has no discernable radius and kills indiscriminately.

For example, a daisy-cutter bomb, although very fcking destructive would not qualify, because you can draw a big circle around the blast radius beyond which no destruction will occur.

A nice vial of E-Bola, however, does qualify, because it could spread very rapidly, and knows no boundaries.

Undefined destructive force.

Originally posted by demsformd
And if Hussein had them, why didn't he use them?

A more interesting question is, "why didn't he produce evidence that he disappeared the ones we KNEW he had." Knowing that doing so would have postponed the war at least, and possibly completely avoided it altogether.

As for not using them, if Hussein was killed or knocked out of power on the first day of bombing (which is still within the realm of possibility) perhaps the ability to use them died with him.

Originally posted by demsformd
The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it.

I've heard very little of this story. I'll withhold comment until I know more about it.

Originally posted by demsformd
As for Clinton, what gives conservatives the right to ask him about his sexual relationships with women while he is on the stand?

Because if Clinton got a hummer, then I want to know about it.

Because then he would have done at least ONE thing that I could respect

 

[vraiblonde]

Dems, it can be "your opinion" that perjury isn't a crime but that doesn't make it so. For someone who claims to be a lawyer, you sure don't know much about the law.

you immediately say that they distorted the truth and go on your rant like you did here.

There's a lie.

Instead I provide my reasoning.

There's another one.

But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation.

There's a major distortion.

Want me to go back and find the post where you said you were black?

And you still haven't explained how everything about the Lynch rescue was a "complete fabrication", which is what I thought was the topic of this thread. So much for your "logic" and "reasoning".

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by vraiblonde


Want me to go back and find the post where you said you were black?

Play the ace instead.

 

[ThayerP]

What it all comes down to is that the military was going into an area that was still technically under enemy control. They knew that Lynch was in the hospital. They knew where she was and they know, for the last information from the lawyer, that there was at least one intellegence officer outside the room she was in. what they did not know:

Where there any hostile forces around the hospital.
where the other prisoners in the same facility or had they been moved further north.
What kind of resistance was expected at the Hospital from enemy forces that my possibly still be there.

These three reasons would be taken into account when planning for this operation. You simply cannot land a helo in a hospital compound, walk over to the people living next to the hospital and ask if the soldiers are still there and then if they aren't go into the hospital without using force. The assumptions in the planning of this operation was that there was reasonable expectations that hostile forces were in the hospital or immediate area. With that in mind they used all the elements they are trained to use to pull off a successful operation of this sort.

Surprise
Overwhelming power and
Speed

They may not have needed it, but I would rather they used it and found it was not neccessary than not used and found they needed to plan another rescue mission with those elements.

They did the right thing.

Second, the weapons of Mass Destruction. The definition given here on this thread was "Anything that has no discernable radius and kills indiscriminately." Let's stick to that definition.

Saddam had absolute access to Iraq (Northern Iraq was not accessible in the last few years) consequently he had no discernable radius in where he could operate within Iraq.
Saddam proved over the last 30+ years that he was willing and did kill indiscriminately.

To me this makes Saddam a weapon of mass destruction. Maybe Bush exagerated the intellegence he received to accomplish the goal of getting rid of Saddam. Fine by me.

In any case the truth of the matter is that the US shared it's intellegence with France. France had been passing information onto Saddam up to a couple of days AFTER the fighting had started. Any intellegence that was valid before the war was invalid within days. The CAI had a mole working for Iraq and anything that the French were not giving them they were receiving from the CIA making the information from France nothing more that a verifying source in most cases. The search had to start from the beginning when the war started because of this. It will take a long time to complete the search.

 

[ThayerP]

Originally posted by vraiblonde

But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation.

There's a major distortion.

Vrai, don't be so naive to believe that these things were not going on since Washington was President. Washington was known for keeping his black slave mistress while in office. Jefferson also. Grover Cleveland actually fathered an illegitamate child while in office with his mistress. FDR had affairs with several of his nurses. Eisenhower kept his female aid from his military career when he took office and it was common knowledge that he was having an affair with her. JFK, well his affairs were common knowledge also. All of the presidents if you looked back of their time in office had done these types of things. What has changed now is that the press realized with the watergate scandal that the press had the abaility to impeach a president and make the reportes legendary. Now the prevailing attitude of the press is that they want that legacy of being the one reporter who impeached a president.

 

[Ken King]

ThayerP,

I believe that Vraiblonde was speaking towards Clinton's legal actions regarding sexual harassment and not the fact that many Presidents have been getting "perks" while in office.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Sharon
Play the ace instead.

I'm saving it.

 

[Heretic]

You know now that I think about it I would much rather there be a false alarm than another 9-11.

Now as far as North Korea goes they have already claimed to possess and have threatened to use nuclear weapons on us....but we know they are and have been big blow hearts for years....what do we do about that.....what if we knew they actually wanted to start a nuclear war.....what if we know they want money so badly they sell them to places like Chechnya, the Palistinian Authority, etc.

 

[Bruzilla]

I don't look at the Lynch affair from a political viewpoint, but from a military one. The allegations made by the BBC are rediculous, and, Dems, I noticed you couldn't provide me with the name of the military official who made all those claims to the media. If anyone is to blame in this whole mess, it's the reporters who didn't bother to verify their facts before filing their stories.

Where I woudl fault Dems is that he's willing to forgo any semblance of objectivity in his quest to slam Bush.

 

[ThayerP]

Originally posted by Ken King
ThayerP,

I believe that Vraiblonde was speaking towards Clinton's legal actions regarding sexual harassment and not the fact that many Presidents have been getting "perks" while in office.

Ken, the point is that all the other pressidents had ddone the same kinds of things that Clinton did and it was never brought up by the press because it was a taboo subject. The taboo seems to have been lifted on publicity in regards to the presidents personal life after the Watergate scandal hit and the media realized they actually posses an intrinsic power of impeachment.

 

[Bruce]

As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation. Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him. [/B][/QUOTE]

Clinton was the target of disgust, not hatred, because he was caught in a lie and refused to own up to his actions. Had nothing to do with right wing, moderate or anything else political. He's a sleeze ball, plain and simple.

 

[vraiblonde]

Ken, the point is that all the other pressidents had ddone the same kinds of things that Clinton did and it was never brought up by the press because it was a taboo subject.

Thayer, I would LOVE for you to name another President, besides Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton, that sent the Secret Service on booty-call.

Did Reagan do it? How about Bush I? Nixon? Eisenhower? Look at the common denominator - what do all the sexual harrassers have in common? And what do the non-harrassers have in common?

And before you say, "Eisenhower had a mistress", please take a look at the difference between Monica Lewinsky, et al, and Kay Summersby.