Majority in US believes Bush 'stretched truth' about Iraq: poll

[STING2]

Further showing this is more politics than a serious investigation into anything that happened, where was Michael Kinsley's articles when Clinton Administration mistakenly bombed and Asprin Factory in Sudan in 1998 and then bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999. The Clinton Administration signed off on both attacks. Both were mistakes in the intelligence process, but just as you do now, you have thousands of people more obsessed with conspiracy rather than truth make all kinds of unsubstantiated allegations.

Based on what we know right now, the President has not lied about anything. There is no such thing as perfect intelligence and its time some people started to realize that and stopped spinning, and start to look at the whole picture instead of one dot. But in our Oliver Stone movies/X-Files Culture, that may be a little much to ask.

 

[Klaus]

So you think the Clinton Administrations bombing of the Chinese Embassy wasnt a protest against Chinese occupation of Tibet?

ok, sorry - back to serious stuff

Clintons bombings were as catastrophal as some actions of mr. bush, because they were based on wrong facts.
Both people are responsible for lots of dead people because they trusted the wrong men

Klaus

 

[Klaus]

"It was not incumbent upon the coalition to have evidence of WMD, it was incubment upon Saddam Hussien to prove that he no longer had WMD or give it up. "

Well you think the People in the USA would have bin pro war if they wouldn't have heared "facts" like:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium for Africa"

or:

"Mr Hussein has the materials to pruduce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent.

Upwards of 30,000 munitions capacity of delivering chemical agents"

or

"Our inteligence sources tell us that he had purchased thtrenght aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons productions"

At the end it's Mr. Bushs responsibility, he's not just the reader - he's the president, it is his decision to speak like that and the consequences are his problem.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Let me give you some facts. Prior to Bush stating any of these things in speaches, all polls of the American public on the subject of going to war against Iraq showed that a majority supported the use of military force to remove Saddam from power.

Oh and let me tell something about one of your quotes above:

"Mr Hussein has the materials to pruduce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent."

"Upwards of 30,000 munitions capacity of delivering chemical agents""

These are facts from the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, not the Bush administration.

As far as intelligence being wrong, that always happens. There is no such thing as perfect intelligence. Accidents do happen. Whats sad is when people use accidents for political reasons to attack others rather than working to prevent such accidents in the future.

 

[kobayashi]

i really dont think this is an issue of support as much as it is one of accountability. the president will make what choices he wants independant of public opinion.

he chose to go to war and he told you why. it turns out some of those reasons were incorrect, and even if it had been one that is one too many.

besides, if public opinion was so much on his side why did he feel the need to utilize something it appears he knew was shady at best? is he not only inviting the present situation then?

 

[STING2]

kobay,

"i really dont think this is an issue of support as much as it is one of accountability. the president will make what choices he wants independant of public opinion."


For George Bush or any US president, public opinion is a big issue. It is impossible for any US president to mount and sustain a large scale military operation without the support of the public in todays world.

Accountability is an issue for SADDAM. SADDAM was the one that failed to account for the WMD that inspectors knew he had back in 1998. Thats a fact.

"he chose to go to war and he told you why. it turns out some of those reasons were incorrect, and even if it had been one that is one too many."

This is incorrect, it turns out a tiny number of the reasons are disputed.

"besides, if public opinion was so much on his side why did he feel the need to utilize something it appears he knew was shady at best? is he not only inviting the present situation then?"

1. He is honestly presenting the case for military action against Iraq and providing the public with as much unclassified inormation as possible. This is his Job as president. He did not know that a single piece of information in one speach would become so hotly disputed.

 

[kobayashi]

For George Bush or any US president, public opinion is a big issue. It is impossible for any US president to mount and sustain a large scale military operation without the support of the public in todays world.

thanks for the PR lesson STING2. much like saddam, the president of the U.S. is also accountable to those who voted him in (we will not go down that road today). he told them something and it seems he likely also had a good idea that his anecdotes were iffy at best. how many of his statements would have to be questionable until he should come under fire? 10%, 25%?


STING2 is there anything you dont like about president bush? has he ever done anything wrong in your eyes?
was there a tie you didnt like, or maybe he laid up when he should have gone for the pin?
anything? it just seems you tirelessly defend every move he makes...are you the president?

 

[STING2]

Kobay,


"thanks for the PR lesson STING2. much like saddam, the president of the U.S. is also accountable to those who voted him in (we will not go down that road today). he told them something and it seems he likely also had a good idea that his anecdotes were iffy at best. how many of his statements would have to be questionable until he should come under fire? 10%, 25%?"

Correction, Saddam is a dictator that rules by oppression, not through the votes or support of the people.

As far as questionable statements, how about coming up with indisputable facts that show wrong doing instead of alleging that it indeed has happened. Otherwise, its no better than the tabloids at the supermarket. But then again, politics is politics I guess. People when they analyze these things showed avoid boxing in their thinking and look at the "context" and keep some "perspective" instead of chasing the most wild of theory's with out any evidence.



"STING2 is there anything you dont like about president bush? has he ever done anything wrong in your eyes?
was there a tie you didnt like, or maybe he laid up when he should have gone for the pin?
anything? it just seems you tirelessly defend every move he makes...are you the president?"

Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No.

I don't like George Bush's position on Gun Control in the USA. I also do not like the relaxing of environmental standards and believe the President needs to work harder to protect the environment. I disagree with the type of tax cuts that President Bush is using. I think all the tax cuts should be focused on those who make less than $100,000. I disagree with the Presidents position on affirmative action. I disagree with some of the protective barriers the President has put on foreign steel and other products in order to protect US companies. I disagree with some of the decisions of the Bush administration to cut certain weapons systems in order to fund others or provide more money for the tax cuts.