$500 REWARD

I thought this site was for technical information, not an American Presidential debate forum. It gets really boring for us non-americans to have to keep wading through this crap all the time.

Max, ALL politicians are liars. Get used to it.

First of all, I think that is has been made clear to everyone here that Bush didn't say 'imminent' himself.

The threat he IMPLIED was much mroe than imminent though, it was an emergency, just look at how your fellow citizens ran around for almost a year saying how they are only protecting thier country and families from this man who MOST DEFINITELY has WMD.

Actually, the guy who WROTE that speech was on TV last week, speaking out against his required duties. He wrote it without ever meeting Bush, or meeting WITH him about the speech.
He says he was told to write what he THOUGHT Bush MAY say, based on his character and faith.

what it ended up as was a well written, evasive speech full of predetermined conclusions based on implication. It was clever and much better than Bush could hae EVER done by himself, for just such an occasion.

Out of Africa- another great play on words truly in political BS style! Although some buy it, others se it as a pretty weak speech.
GWB had ordered a CIA oprative to investigate the POSSIBILTY that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa. The agent returned to say there was no possible way or link that he could find and the information could not be confirmed and he highly doubted by conferring with various members of Saddam's regime that it was at all possible. This was ALL left out of GWB's speech, by the SAME speechwrier, who claims he was told NOT to mention the CIA ivestigations and to just explain that it was from British intelligence. Again, at this point the speechwriter had neither met nor conferred with Bush on his thoughts, it was a predertimined outcome again.

Fair enough though, Bush did say it was British intelligence, but why omit alternate PROOF when speaking of it?

Holding BACK information from the people is JUST as bad as telling them the wrong information.

PLUS, in light of the speech implying that there was a grave danger that must be stopped before it atacked America, this just fanned the fire a little more in people and made them even more confused and angry, especially so soon after 9/11, and with the constant question of the links betwen the two.

Mission Accomplished: I agree wholly on this one, the war contains MANY missions and while some are unsucessful, others are very successful. Therefore, upon completeing 'A' mission, a mission accomplished banner was flown on the carrier.
Unfortunately, it was never explained at THAT time WHY Mission Accomplished was being displayed on international TV channels around the world, with the press and his photo op.

Again, IMPLICATIONS from a man who is supposed to be VERY clear in his goals and objectives at least to his own citizens. The way it was played out DID imply he figured it was a done deal. Wasn't it RICE who even said under oath that Bush looked very smug in the oval office one day and said something very similar to "casualties? We won't have any casualties" When discussing the Iraqi invasion?

He wants to imply success because he can hear and see the doubt in people, when your own people doubt your actions, you must be somewhat cunning and sly in your speeches so as to imply but not be quoted.

WMD- The entire nation, make that entire world, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS ALL OVER AMERICA, KNEW Saddam had WMD.

They also knew Saddam was a grave danger and a threat to thir lives. I think the world will automatically put two and two together and WHO's responsibility is it to ensure that people do NOT get the wrong impression? GWB.

Who went on international TV to clear up the misunderstanding due to these two topics being discussed nearly at the same time and thus creating such a fright in America? Nobody.

Who failed to inform his people and ensure they were clear on these events? GWB.

Who is responsible? Bush.

Who failed his people? Bush.

Who made the speeches? Bush.

Who corrected the micommunication and simple misunderstanding? NOBODY.

Who SHOULD have placed his people at ease and explained that while Saddam is a threat to the world, he is not a DIRECT or IMMINENT threat to America at this time? Bush, even though allies had said just that and decided it was the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." (had to quote Kerry on that one).
Who did? Nobody

For questioning Bush's dire need to instantly remove weapons inspectors and invade Iraq on the premise that Weapons inspections were not going successfully, his allies were called every name under the sun and chastized for not rushing to your side.

At this point Americans STILL thought Saddam was an imminent threat and would use WMD on the USA.
Bush had STILL not cleared up the mass hysteria forming within his own country.

Bush did not live up to his expectations nor his duty as president to ensure that his citizens are well informed of the country's actions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now if it was ONLY Democrats who thought these things, then I would be somewhat skeptical. But in actuality, it was MAINLY Republicans who were defending the right for America to rid this man of WMD and protect thier families from attack. So even those who follow GWB 'religiously', were mislead, misinformed or simply let down by thier president's inability to tell the news as it was.

As for the $500.00, judging by the page provided and the shown intellect of the person who wrote it.

I would also say that this same person ALSO believed in WMD and imminent threats until he needed to defend against it as an accusation against his own beliefs or in order to defend GWB, just as many have done. It's not clever, it's obvious, or else the person hasn't actually realized his flip-lop himself.

It's a Republican flip-flop. They won't mention how they also believed it and were completely fooled by the wording and even went as far as to sew it repeatedly as a reason to justify the war. They will just use it against people who claim Bush lied by letting them down and misinforming them.

I would be shocked as hell, if this guy actually doled out $500.00 if he was proven wrong anyway (that's if he can muster $500.00).
He has done exactly what many Republicans have, taken a minor issue and dwelled on the wording and not the intent of it.

The Republican angle is not hard to see, it is very much like legal speak, carefully worded statements that imply doom if they are not heeded yet remove blame of implication from the speaker. This is a way of having leading questions admissible in court, without actuallly leading the question.

In the same respect I see some radical lefties that are no different in thier implications either.

This page hardly proves or explains anything though, other than Bush's speechwriter was able to imply without implicating the president, this is comletely rhetorical at this point in time.

Say what you will Max, I don't buy it and I certainly doubt many other people do.

Bush let down America, he withheld infomation and didn't clear up any OBVIOUS questions and misunderstandings that US citizens and most other people in the world had.

now this in itself deems him unworthy as a leader, if he has a communication issue, how can he possibly lead 300 million people and consult a global community? He can't and shouldn't be allowed to.

but the repubs can giggle all the way to the toll booths and reelect this nutbag if they want, just don't expect your country to be much when he's done with using you.

So far their hasnt been any proof, and the proof offered originally was three years old. So far it appears he lied, so how long do we wait till he concedes he wagged the dog?
"Mission accomplished", we were looking for Osama (U.S. citizens desire), not Saddam(we knew where he was the whole time, Saddam that is, you pick the motto of the week "Iraqi freedom", "Operation Eagle" yadda yadda)Are we done with Iraq? No? Hmm.... And if it is accomplished why are we still there? Oh yeah the oil pipeline.
America is safer since 9/11 yet a geek with 6 box cutters like the one the terrorists easily got passed upgraded security in various airports hiding them in planes and after 6 months gave them a letter stating exactly where they were since we couldnt find them in the first place.
Since the Patriot act has there been 1 conviction of a suspected terrorist under the new survaliance?
I like crisp twenty dollar bills thank you, lol.
All kidding aside I know its tough to look strong after 9/11, but going after a despot to gain favor not prepared to find Osama wasnt a good choice. I believe in fighting for the little guy but that wasnt what his administration campained for us to support him, that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Over a thousand dead, soldiers not properly supported, and no Osama. There are other things but you get my gist. Like all politicians and I mean all, lie to gain support and Georgie is no better, but worse in my opinion because he he didnt do what we expected, I wasnt suprised.

I am astonished, Max, that a person like yourself who repeatedly has declared that all journalists (reporters or whatever) deliberately twist the truth, would even CONSIDER posting a document which so blatantly selects individual sentences to prove absolutely nothing.

The website johnhowardlies.com is still active, and I recommend that you visit it to see tangible proof of Howard's lies, as against the ridiculous article about Bush's "honesty" to which you have directed our attention.

Lie = When a person making a statement, "knows" that the information being presented (at that time) is not true.

Therefore, If GWB made a statement, in which he believed to be true, but later finds out that facts did not support his original statement, would that be a lie? By definition it is not a lie.

Max, I am taking your side in this discussion.

The information provided on the link really give a compelling case. Point made and accepted.

Michael R.

.
My reference to the $500 reward Web site was indeed intended to be light-hearted, but not only light-hearted, as it was also intended to make a point.

My "clinging to your ill-feelings towards another" comment could have been, I suppose, about either me or President Bush. (But really it was an answer to your "clutching" comment. You know, if I'm "clutching", you must be "clinging", your tit for my tat......dang, I shouldn't have said that......and so on.)

I just don't understand the depth of contempt held by many people towards one person (President Bush). Agree or disagree with his policies and decisions, but I can't recall another president viewed with such contempt by so many. I actually see it as a poison started by a few and now infecting many. And I just can't relate or understand

I often compare the current President Bush to the former President Carter. They are both, in my estimation, extremely good men, honest men, both dedicated to their faith, their families, and their country, they both had a crisis thrust upon them, but they're at opposite ends of the political spectrum (like you and me). For the sake of avoiding argument, I'll even concede that President Bush, like President Carter, could be viewed as having made some mistakes and such, at least I understand how some may have that impression. But President Bush is literally demonized by his political opponents, where it's not at all warranted. President Carter was never demonized by his political opponents in such a way.

I'll illustrate as follows:

His detractors will say that he made some foreign policy blunders. He cost the unnecessary loss of life among our military ranks. He damaged the reputation of the USA in the eyes of many foreign nations. He made a shambles of our economy. He embarrassed the reputation of the USA. He wears his faith on his sleeve for all to see. He.............

Who am I speaking about? President Bush as characterized by many of his political opponents, or President Carter as characterized by many of his? There's no way to tell, is there? But President Bush is demonized for it, while President Carter is not - and was not.

Nonetheless, please excuse my digression. And if we were to meet, I'm sure we'd have a lot to talk about, have fun doing it, and without causing any ill-feelings.

One thing I do know is that people will say things in threads like these, under the cloud of anonymity, that would never be said in person. Moreover, as you and I well know, the "written word" is all too often open to a lot of interpretation. Perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt should be the rule, not the exception.

Cheers to you as well.

(By the way, I'll pass on commenting on your definition............but I guess I just did, didn't I?)

.
My reference to the $500 reward Web site was indeed intended to be light-hearted, but not only light-hearted, as it was also intended to make a point.

My "clinging to your ill-feelings towards another" comment could have been, I suppose, about either me or President Bush. (But really it was an answer to your "clutching" comment. You know, if I'm "clutching", you must be "clinging", your tit for my tat......dang, I shouldn't have said that......and so on.)

I just don't understand the depth of contempt held by many people towards one person (President Bush). Agree or disagree with his policies and decisions, but I can't recall another president viewed with such contempt by so many. I actually see it as a poison started by a few and now infecting many. And I just can't relate or understand

I often compare the current President Bush to the former President Carter. They are both, in my estimation, extremely good men, honest men, both dedicated to their faith, their families, and their country, they both had a crisis thrust upon them, but they're at opposite ends of the political spectrum (like you and me). For the sake of avoiding argument, I'll even concede that President Bush, like President Carter, could be viewed as having made some mistakes and such, at least I understand how some may have that impression. But President Bush is literally demonized by his political opponents, where it's not at all warranted. President Carter was never demonized by his political opponents in such a way.

I'll illustrate as follows:

His detractors will say that he made some foreign policy blunders. He cost the unnecessary loss of life among our military ranks. He damaged the reputation of the USA in the eyes of many foreign nations. He made a shambles of our economy. He embarrassed the reputation of the USA. He wears his faith on his sleeve for all to see. He.............

Who am I speaking about? President Bush as characterized by many of his political opponents, or President Carter as characterized by many of his? There's no way to tell, is there? But President Bush is demonized for it, while President Carter is not - and was not.

Nonetheless, please excuse my digression. And if we were to meet, I'm sure we'd have a lot to talk about, have fun doing it, and without causing any ill-feelings.

One thing I do know is that people will say things in threads like these, under the cloud of anonymity, that would never be said in person. Moreover, as you and I well know, the "written word" is all too often open to a lot of interpretation. Perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt should be the rule, not the exception.

Cheers to you as well.

(By the way, I'll pass on commenting on your definition............but I guess I just did, didn't I?)

.
....or regret.

In a case such as you mentioned, I'd choose the lie.

(But would that qualify for the $500 bucks?)

Now one must think, IS this guy actually going to be covinced that Bush lied no matter WHAT is prsented to him?

What some people see as a blatant lie, others will see as simply being misinformed (it's someone else's fault).

Nobody can convince YOU Bush lied, it is strictly a matter of perception and what YOU choose to believe which, don't get me wrong, is completely acceptable of course.

This guy can deny ANY source provided, ANY information provided and just retort with LEFTY BS, just as we see SO many people doing here.

I was thinking last night, discussing politics is no different than discussing religion. It is purely a NO WIN situation.

With religion, people cannot be swayed to another because they have FAITH, that ever powerful inner guidance that everyone needs to survive, whether select religious faith in a spcific god or personal faith that they are good people.

The reason Bush has support from people such as yourself is because you have FAITH in him,it really doesn't have anythig to do with integrity and such, just what YOU believe. Whereas others have LOST faith in him.

It will never be determined right or wrong either way. Even if 10 years after his term(s)people uncover dirt on him, it can STILL be written off that nobody knew about it while IN office etc.

TRUE faith cannot be changed, those that are 'politically agnostic' will never believe in any specific leader as all politicians are deemed liars and irrelevant.

Other than that it will always be left vs right, and nobody but you can change YOUR faith for you.

Yuo should visit the sites Technical Q&A section, you will gt awarded points by the question poster if it helps. There are TONNES of people you can help with issues and it's great practice to keep you sharp. This section is just dicsussions, not so much questions.

No need to get frustrated, ALL technical Q&A's are absent of politics! :)

Have fun with it.

.
You're right, these political discussions are getting to be rather tiresome, and especially redundant - even for a regular contributor such as myself. But we affectionately call these kinds of discussions "water-cooler" talk. You know, you need a break from the Microsoft security patches, the new virus that snuck in, the I don't remember which RAM to use, and so on.

But wait till after the election, the one GWB will win 338 to 200, and they will, most likely, be fewer to deal with.

Hey, welcome to TechRepublic. This is an absolutely fantastic Technical site. Don't let the tangents give you a false impression.