Posted on 09/26/2004 10:38:19 AM PDT by MtnMover
Bush has said (paraphrased) that the Iraq War is a "catastrophic success".
1-liner: This means that Bush has been successful at creating a catastrophe.
It was reported on ABC's This Week show this morning that 70% of the republicans want a dramatic change in the manner in which Bush manages the Administration.
1-liner: How can republicans vote for a candidate who will 'stay the course' and expect a dramatic change?
I was a hero before I was a traitor.
I'm John Kerry and I think I approve of this message.
Democratic Party: "Take our candidate. Please!"
"as I use to say to ole John Gacey, one of our most famous Demoncraps, the best is yet to come" ..
yeah, give'em all the death penalty is right!!....ole John and his infamous picture with the Carters speaks volumns about what kind of people are in the DNP
"I'm John Kerry, and I have no message".
"You bet I might have"
The first and usual problem with DemoncRATs is that they (you) LIE with abandon. Bush has never said that. What he has said, and paraphrasing Tommy Franks who first wrote such in his book, American Soldier, is that the rush to Baghdad and corresponding collapse of Saddam's troops was itself a "catastrophic success"; in other words, our military was so effective that Saddam's troops fled and, in many cases, lived to fight another day. Since it's Sunday and it's quite beautiful outside, I'll assume you're simply uninformed and not another lying troll ROFLMAO
Why does your nose run and your feet smell?
How can republicans vote for a candidate who will 'stay the course' and expect a dramatic change?
Kerry wants to take every position on each issue and he expects that we will believe him.
If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of congress?
I believe I heard that phrase 'catastrophic success' reported in the media. That's why I characterized it with the 'paraphrase'. Although it would not be too much of a stretch to characterize public pronouncements of officials as representations of the Administration. Don't books wriiten by former military officials have to be reviewed by the DOD before publication? Perhaps not?
It is curious though that you would call the use of such language a lie. Particularly when the gist of the comment is well understood. Perhaps it is a fact that George didn't actually utter those specific words. But the comment is not a lie either. It does appear to me that the Iraq War is a catastrophe. It does appear to me that Bush consider's it a success ( Mission Accomplished - ooops, I guess he didn't actually say that either! (intentional sarcasm - :o) ). So the 'lying' or the misinformed representation of the facts that you refer to is not very far from the 'truth' or may very well be an appropriate characterization of the position of the Administration, which happens to be managed by the President, who is vicariously responsible for the public pronouncements of his subordinates - even if they are honorably discharged.
And in my opinion, those who support the military action against Iraq based on the deception of the public reasons given for such military action are in denial about whether the deception regarding the public justification for the war was a clear misrepresentation of the facts, or the truth. That qualifies as a very BIG LIE partly because it deprived the People of their right to provide their government with their Informed Consent!. And the practice of a President to permit, facilitate, promote, etc., such misrepresentations to blossom in order to support a military action is significant enough for me to warrant a conclusion that the President participated, yes even encouraged, the BIG LIE, even though he did not utter the specific words that were uttered by his subordinates or attributed credibility to the words of others (Britain) as if he himself believed them to be true and therefore we should believe them to be true.
BTW - the guilt associated with criminal misconduct may be established on the ommission to act as well as a commission of an act.
The public promotion to attach Iraq was based on true facts:_____
The public promotion to attack Iraq was based on false information:____
Then experience taught me otherwise
I don't believe it is inconsistent with human experience to go to war in Vietnam and then to adjust your position regarding the war based on a personal experience or on the acquisition of other facts. Some people learn to think for themselves - others follow the script.
Hi, I'm John Kerry. Vote for me and I won't ever get us into a war no matter what anyone does to us.
One-liner for Kerry: Freedom ~ it's not for everybody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.