Woah. I go to work for 8 hours and the thread explodes. Damn!
Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
The liberal media has consistently distorted two key points:
|
Please provide EVIDENCE (not "my mom told me" or anything like that) that the media is liberal. Because I frankly don't see it, and I work in it. If the media is so damn liberally biased, why did they help to crucify Clinton? Why did CNN run Dean's "YEAAHHHH!" outburst 277 times in 24 hours - a move that helped derail his campaign? Why are they not nailing Bush to the wall for his missteps?
Quote:
- The use of the word "imminent". Bush said we needed to act before the threat posed by Saddam became imminent.
|
Number one, bullshit. He said the threat WAS imminent, not that it could BECOME imminent. See, "urgent" is interchangeable with "imminent" Observe in the next section:
Quote:
|
The press has created a fictionalized version in which they claim Bush said the threat was imminent. (For Bush's exact wording, I refer you to the 2003 State of the Union Address.)
|
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02
(note that in that one, he bypasses imminent, which means "it's gonna happen very soon" and says that he IS a threat.)
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
Quote:
|
- The liberal media has also promoted two versions of why we went to war: WMDs (and their imminent threat) and It Was All About Oil. They conveniently jump back and forth between the two when evidence is presented which contradicts one of these myths.
|
OK. I have to ask. Do you actually know what the hell you're saying? Because I'm starting to have trouble figuring it out. BUSH said we went to war over WMD's. Not the media. Bush. Conservative Bush. I have yet to see a NEWS story (not a jackass political talk show host on AM radio, but a real NEWS story produced by JOURNALISTS) that said we went to war to get oil. What are your sources? So far you're flinging about 3 tons of bullshit out there and you have no evidence for any of it.
Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
Then please provide a better term for a movement which seeks to force a Islamic-based totalitarian form of government upon the rest of the world.
I will happily use whatever term conveys the concept.
|
What the hell are you talking about? If anything, it's Americans that are forcing their form of government on the world. Or hadn't you noticed that we went in and removed Iraq's government and installed a form that we like a lot better?
Quote:
Originally posted by wonderwench
It is not blind rhetoric. The burden and nature of proof are the germaine issues.
|
Yes, and you've made statements and have failed totally to provide ANY proof for them. The burden of proof is on you, and you're dropping the ball.
Quote:
The justification for war was one of dealing with a reasonable risk. The commonality of the attacks upon the justification is a perspective that we have not proven the existence of vast stores of WMDs beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
And since the "reasonable risk" was that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's that he was just itching to launch on poor innocent Americans, I'd say proving their existance would go a long way toward proving the reasonable risk, wouldn't you?
Quote:
|
One: the discovery process is far from over.
|
Oh please, Don't be so naiive. We've been swarming over that country since February of 2003, and we haven't found ONE of the jillions of WMD's he was supposed to have had? Our troops should have been tripping over them if there were as many as the American people were duped into thinking there were.
Quote:
|
Two: the risk assessment was made based upon the best available intelligence and analysis available at the time.
|
Well see there's the problem. In the State of the Union 2003 that you referred us to, Bush told us that we had good intelligence that Iraq had tried to get yellowcake uranium from Africa. Trouble is, he had already been told that those reports were false, yet he left 'em in there. That doesn't sound like he's making threat assessments on the best intelligence available to him at the time. Sounds more like he's making shit up as he goes along.
Quote:
|
I am saying we have found some WMDs
|
And the rational world is saying we have not. That's like taking an empty can of Coke and trying to convince me that it's materially the same thing as a full can of Coke. No one with the slightest amount of common sense is gonna believe it.
Quote:
|
[/b] and that the process of discovery is far from over. [/b]
|
And just how long must we wait for the discovery process to be over? It's been nearly one and a half years, and NO evidence has surfaced. Do you recall Cheney saying that we knew exactly where the WMD's were - in an area outside Baghdad and Tikrit? Remember all the pretty photos Colin Powell showed the UN? Gee, if we knew where all this shit was, why haven't we found it yet?
Quote:
|
The existence of some refutes the claims that there are none and that Saddam was not in violation of the UN resolutions.
|
I'm glad you said that. I wanted hamburgers for dinner tonight, but all I have is the empty package from the ones I had 3 days ago. I'm glad that, according to your logic, I still have hamburgers. Now I don't have to settle for a hot dog.
Quote:
|
Incorrect. The WMDs were not the main selling point; the main selling point was the risk Saddam's regime posed to our national security for a combination of reasons. The liberal media fixated upon this one element for their own spin.
|
What were the other elements? What was he going to do to us if he wasn't going to get us with WMD's? Throw sticks at us?
Don't say the "liberal media" fixated on this element for their own spin. Bush & his cohorts repeated the WMD mantra for MONTHS before the war started. He drove it into everyone's skull every opportunity he got. HE is the one who fixated on it.
sheesh. I'm not saying convert to the democratic party. All I'm saying is THINK about what you are saying before you say it, because you're not making one whit of sense.