|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If we start at the begining and look at Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war, which you say is based on lies, I then look at other historical leaders and look at what they said at the dawn of war. Chruchhill painted a picture of the enemy, that at the time was not proven true. He says without victory there is no survival. He talks about his plan, and it is simply to wage war. He says they will do what needs to be done, were there violations of civil liberties, did he stretch the spirit of their laws for what he though was the common good? What do you think? Or, do you need experts to connect the dots, and tell you what to think in relation to how leaders have conducted affairs during war.
|
ace...the challenge for you is that "the beginning" is not "Bush's first speech requesting authorization for war". That is not a specific that you should see a need to explain, from your POV, to maintain the "reasonableness", of your position that Bush "says what he means". To accomplish that, you would have to explain how he could be reliably telling us that he did not "know" Abramoff, or how it could be that he could proclaim, in Oct., 2001 that he had the tools, in the Patriot Act that he was then signing into law, to cope with modern technological innovation for electronic surveillance of "terrorists", only to later use the gap between innovation and the 1978 technology that FISA was written to respond to, as the excuse to circumvent FISA, illegally....
Did Bush "mean what he said" in Oct., 2001, or on Sept. 7, 2006, with regard to justifying warrantless wiretaps?
ace, you make this debate much easier on me than it could be:
Quote:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=818
....Churchill's strength as a War Leader rested in his burning conviction, in the teeth of all the odds, that in our Island, we were unconquerable. Second, and equal to that, was his ability to communicate that spirit of resolution to the British nation. In the words of the American broadcaster Edward R. Murrow, later reiterated by President John F. Kennedy, Churchill "mobilised the English language, and sent it into battle." His wartime speeches at that turning-point of history, were as remarkable as they are memorable.
In his first address to Parliament, on becoming Prime Minister, he declared: <b>"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat....You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land and air with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never
surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road will be; for without victory, there is no survival."</b>
Within five weeks France had fallen and Hitler was free to direct all his might against Britain.....
....When, later, he reflected upon the momentous day, 10 May 1940, when he had become Prime Minister, Churchill recalled his feelings, as he went to bed in the early hours: <b>"I was conscious of a profound sense of relief....I felt as if I were walking with destiny and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial."</b>
Of all the remarkable qualities of Winston Churchill there is none more amazing than his unshakable belief in his destiny. As a young man he once confided to Violet Asquith: "We are all worms. But I do believe that I am a glow-worm!" Indeed, even before that, while still a schoolboy at Harrow, he had already developed a keen sense of his purpose here on earth....
|
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Winds of War
By JACOB HEILBRUNN
Published: October 15, 2006
......Far more interesting is Isikoff and Corn's exploration of the mental world that the administration inhabits. They recount that in December 2001, <b>Scooter Libby read aloud to a visiting journalist a famous passage from Winston Churchill's memoirs about being named prime minister: ''I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.'' Libby declared that these words could be applied to Cheney after Sept. 11.</b> Hubris? Megalomania may be more like it.
|
...the commonality of your megalomania with Libby's, and Cheney's, and Bush's....aside...
Wouldn't a "reasonable" response from you go something like,
Quote:
I am persuaded that Bush was truthful when he declared, when asked about Abramoff, <b>"I don't know him"</b>, because it is common knowledge that, even though Abramoff's former key assistant, Ralston, was Bush's special assistant for 5 years, working at a desk just down the hall from the oval office, Ralston only spoke the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagalog_language">Tagalog
language</a>...and Rove spoke it fluently....not Bush
|
...or:
Quote:
Yes....bush did say, in October, 2001,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html
<b>"As of today, we're changing the laws governing information-sharing. And as importantly, we're changing the culture of our various agencies that fight terrorism. Countering and investigating terrorist activity is the number one priority for both law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists.
The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.
As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology."</b>
....but, by 2006... 59 months later, the confining provisions of the FISA law had again been overtaken by leaps and bounds in technological development since way back in the autumn of 2001, so....what was Bush to do, except to say what he said on Sept. 7, 2006:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060907-2.html
<b>"...When FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet, and almost all calls were made on fixed landlines.
Since then, the nature of communications has changed, quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones, and open anonymous e-mail addresses. Our laws need to change to take these changes into account..........."</b>
....and Gonzales backed Bush's sept., 2006 claims, after the NY Times Dec., 2005 warrantless wiretapping news story broke:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
<b>......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.
The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy.
You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</b>
|
....then, ace...you could post a conclusion like, ....
Quote:
|
Bush was not lying in Sept., 2006.....Gonzales said the same thing in Dec., 2005, and.....Gonzales is the attorney general, and....so he wouldn't lie...
|
....but trying to compare the rhetoric that Churchill used on the day he took office in May, 1940...the same day that Germany was invading France....naw...ace....my example of how you could have tried to post a "reasonable" argument, is a more..
reasonable way for you to try to persuade us...that...you have a resonable POV, when it comes to the idea that Bush "says what he means"!
Last edited by host; 05-25-2007 at 10:17 AM..
|