liberal lies
 

Since everyone is so worried about lies, I'd like to ask about a few?

Before the war, the democrats of our country and around the world claimed that a war in iraq would take months or even years and cost billions and billions.

It was over fast, and didn't cost billions and billions.

Before war, they claimed a war would cost the lives of thousands to hundreds of thousands of american lives.

It hasn't....

Before the war they said a war would create an unescapeable environmental problem that would destroy the eco-system.

looks ok to me?

How many liberal lies and made up stories and stats can this country stand?

Thank God for Bush. He may, at times, seem to be a little Gumpish, but at least he isn't clinton or full of shit like the red diaper baby boomer liberals

hold up, most of these are just what YOU thought the democrats said.

how about you back these up w/ some sourcse and quotes?

Re: liberal lies
 

Are you watching the news anymore?

The war has already cost over 63 billion dollars--that's multiple billions.

The war isn't over--only air force and navy personel have returned. The marines and army soldiers are still fighting--and they are still dying (and at an even greater rate than "during" the war.

There is another thread regarding the use of Depleted Uranium.

edit: BTW, asking questions is one thing, derogratory attacks on people or their ideologies is just being rude and immature.

"Red diaper"?? What the hell is that?

never heard of "red diaper" either.

Personally, I think using the word "lies" is a bit strong.

Let's just give the people who had concerns about the War,
the benefit of the doubt.

We have had certain wars go bad,
you are wise to take this under some consideration.

Hinesight is 20/20, and you could not say either way beforehand
which way this was going to go.
Unless you're psychic.

Let's just let it go, and now focus on some domestic issues for a change.
Both the Democrats & Republicans, both liberal & conservative,
have their work cut out for them.

Try to back up your 'rants' with facts. Not slurs. I understand your anger - but logic suggests...sorry, Spock took over for a sec.

Me Neither! But I can see where it could be applied, or might fit.

on you??? how cute!! :p



j/k!

My guess would be "born and raised communist."

Wow, I couldn't have said it any better than Door did...
Pretending even that the war cost nothing and that no one was killed, and pretending even that depleted uranium wasn't used, you still go back to the fact that these statements were made Before the war.

That's like me saying to my friends: "The Rams are gonna kill the 49ers, by a margin of 28, and with half their players on the sick roster." It might happen, it might be better, it might be worse. It's speculation. The war could very easily have continued as a mass campaign for much longer. And being that its not over yet, (My friends are still not back here btw) and that the US has lost the respect of a large portion of the world and the Middle East hates us along with our partnership with Israel, this war could very easily continue for years. Sure, it may not be giant campaigns, but war will likely continue for some time.

If those statements were truly made, I'm glad they were wrong about massive loss of American military personnel. By being wrong, I have more hope for seeing my friends.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/11/2/50344

Red Diaper-Doper Babies: The ACLU
Michael Savage
November 2, 1999
Warning: Michael Savage is the most exciting and controversial radio host in America. The views expressed here are his own. Certified liberals and politically correct individuals should proceed with caution.
Unelected, largely invisible, a secret society of lawyer-gangsters has waged a merciless war against America.

Let us look at what the ACLU, in its devious machinations, has done just recently.

The police in California enjoyed a unique protection for about 17 years. A law, passed in 1982, allowed them to sue citizens who file false complaints against them. I like that law because most of the complaints against the police — most, not all — that I have followed are by paid activists who work for criminal enterprises and criminal businesses, seeking to throw out cases against drug dealers and their ilk. Of course, there are also those on the looney left who sue cops for a living. But now the ACLU has struck this law down.

At the bidding of the ACLU, the Superior Court of San Francisco ruled against this law protecting the police from frivolous and malicious suits. Again we see that the courts in San Francisco are not so superior after all. In fact, they are more like a clown act. Watching their antics is like watching the apes at the zoo mimic each other. There's no mistaking it; this is what the courts of San Francisco have become.

Some misguided souls think that the ACLU is there to protect freedom of speech and the Constitution. But I tell you that the only constitution the ACLU has ever protected is that of the ex-USSR. Anything that falls outside their leftopathic agenda is, as far as they're concerned, also outside the protection of "freedom of speech" and the US Constitution.

The founding fathers, in their infinite wisdom, crafted the greatest document for Mankind's liberation in the history of the world; it's called the Constitution of the United States of America. The ACLU has tried to rip this hallowed document to pieces a thousand different ways and a thousand different times. But, whenever it suits them, they wrap themselves in the Constitution and the flag.

I don't know if this is what he had reference to or not.

Or maybe it was this:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j060801.html

OOPS! I crapped my pants!

/snl

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLIT...y/top.bush.jpg

Re: liberal lies
 

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ima...reers/baby.jpg
"What the fuck is a red diaper?"

Seriously though, usually when you want to make a point about something, a few sources and factual evidence usually helps. According to every news source I've ever seen, it did cost billions, at least 200 coalition forces were killed, and I'm sure the exhaust from tanks and trucks have to have effected the environment a little. Not to mention, stuff blowing up and all.

Re: liberal lies
 

I don't see anything he needs to back-up.

Most of this is now self-evident unless you've been under a rock somewhere for the last 3 months or so.

First off - the number of American lives lost - trying to maintain order since the war ended has cost 29 - the number killed in the war, by the war - about 30 Totals casualties to this date a little over 200. Most the result of automobile accidents.

How many billions did the war cost - very damn little - what is costing money is trying to rebuild a country that was pillaged and plundered by its own government -

An ecological disaster - not even as much so as the first Iraq War. What few wells that were ignited were controlled in a short time.

Perhaps we should apologize for the fact that this war didn't end up as so many you predicted, and as it almost appeared some of you actually wanted -

Perhaps this would make a good read for some of you - It should be from enough of a liberal source to suit the most liberal of you!

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j060801.html

It starts out like this:

Did They All Lie About Weapons of Mass Destruction?
By Paul Walfield
CNSNews.com Commentary
June 05, 2003

Many people from just about every political persuasion nowadays are clamoring for an explanation as to why no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

As Congressman Meeks said on Fox's Hannity and Colmes on June 5, 2003, "It's been 72 days since the beginning of the war in Iraq."

Bill O'Reilly is quick to add, "The administration should be given a few more weeks" before being called upon to explain. Though, he has been saying that, every show, every day, for a few weeks now.

No one - not even the French and Germans - thought for a minute that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.

The entire United Nations Security Council put into Resolution 1441 their belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Bill Clinton told us during his administration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

These weapons will be found in Iraq, but it just might take a bit longer than the cynics would like.

It is a strange phenomenon. Torture chambers in Iraq have been exposed; horror stories have been told and verified; unmarked graves have been unearthed and 25 million Iraqis have been freed from a monster's grip, yet some people think we have all been duped into a war based on a lie.

Re: liberal lies
 

Wait, what liberals claimed this exactly? It did cost billions and billions as others have already pointed out, so that point is just plain wrong. Anyone who knows anything about the US military knew that the war would be over quickly, although not even those IN the military predicted it would be this easy. Most of us expected fighting in Baghdad to be similar to that in Stalingrad; street to street, house to house. Luckily it didn't end up that way. But, as I said, not even the Conservatives claimed it would happen like this, so again, your point is off base. Nobody claimed that "hundreds of thousands" of American lives would be lost, that's just ridiculous. It is worth noting that approximately ten thousand Iraqi civilian lives were lost in three weeks, which is proportional to the 60,000 American lives lost over all 10 years of the Vietnam conflict. I'm not saying that those "no good hippie liberal commies" (as so many forum denizens love to spout) are the best thing ever, but this is simply a classic straw man argument.

Liquor Dealer, you just don't get it. The fact that something good came out of the war is not the point. The point is a lot of bad also came out of the war and the thing that really bothers some of us is the Administration claim that the only course we had was to go to War, now. Even the Administration is conceding that was not true. And to say The Liberals were lying because we got "lucky" and didn't loose a lot of American lives is ludicrous. I am not sure the families who lost love ones in the War would think we were that lucky. And that doesn't even touch on the lives of those lost on the Iraqi side.

I think Liquor Dealer gets it just right. 9/11 changed the world- not the war in Iraq. Whether war was the only course of action or not is irrelevant. The consequences of it where not predetermined either. We need to understand the new world that surrounds us. Do we stand by and watch death or try to stop it before it starts? Is one death that prevents thousands worth it or not? 100 hundred years from now will we look back and worry about the 63 Billion dollars we spent or count the lives we may have saved? I'd say none of this is over yet. And wringing our hands over a little DEPLETED uranium is simply hysteria. We didn't get lucky. We have the finest military the world has ever seen. They have been honed to a razors edge by the condemnation of the Leftist Agenda. The rest of the world has not lost respect. They're scared.

Those weren't lies, they were opinions.

Lies go like this: "Iraq represents a grave and immediate threat to the national security of the United States..."

How about: "We found the weapons of mass destruction," in reference to two trailers with lab equipment but no pathogens aboard.

Or: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Who is lying now?

Hooray, another right-wing hawk joins the fold. Would you like thousands of depleted uranium shells in your backyard, if worrying about their effects is simply hysteria?
It seems like you don't want to understand the new world that surrounds us, but cow it that we might rule it with an iron fist.

Oh, how I love to be categorized by one statement. We humans have a tendancy to read (or say) something, insert our own emotions, attribute our emotions to the author, and believe we've given the author justice. I never said the world being scared was a good thing or that I liked it. I just stated it as my perception of the facts. I, in no way, shape or form, want to rule anybody or anything. As for thousands of depleted uranium shells in my backyard, if I had an army we would fight to the death to keep you from putting them there. Wasn't that what the Iraqis did? The hysteria comes from, not their existence, but from people pounding their chest over them. Maybe if we all get hysterical enough they will all just go away, or maybe just never have existed at all?

You're right, I did pigeonhole you pretty hard there. I retract my statement about you wanting the US to rule the world by military force.
Depleted uranium shells. The Iraqis didn't fight to death to keep us from putting them there, we put them there while they were fighting us to the fall of the regime, not the death. We're not beating our breast over the shells, we're raising serious issues about their lingering effects. It seems to me that you're categorizing asking critical questions as hysteria. Perhaps you fell victim to the human tendency you cited?

ok, I was caught on place- I didn't mean billions, I meant trillions. That is my error.

and my only response is this-

I don't actually belive that liberals lied. They just were wrong. Just like if no nukes are found, bush wouldn't have lied, he'd just have been wrong.

But no one cares about reality here. Just about how they can get there jabs at the Bush administration.

I recomend you all not only read the newspapers, but listen to some non-liberal news and opinions. I give no sources because, frankly, I don't have the time to go, but I know they are out there.

Be real, why else were the lib's arguing that war was bad?

I am only human, after all. What I think door was referring to as an ecological disaster was the danger of oil spills and oil fires. While some oil fires did occur, I think the overall ecological impact was much more minimal than many had thought would be the case before the war.

Flame Alert:

I'm sure that's a big comfort to the families of the 215 coalition members that died. Tell 'em "Oops, my bad!"

/Flame

Evidence is starting to be unearthed that people in the administration manipulated CIA and DIA analysts into giving them the information they wanted. Now THAT is lying.

Do me a favor and look up the word liberal sometime...

dude, tell me where somebody said it was going to cost "trillions and trillions of dollars"

you have any idea how big a trillion is ? (that's what our deficit is getting close to but that's a differnent story! :p )

lol, and you think all the newspapers are liberal?? hhaha, lemme guess, and the whole world is out to find and kill all conservatives???

Let us understand here, the US military is a totally volunteer force,
so this means the brave US marines and soldiers that were killed volunteered for this duty. You do not join the military without knowing there is a chance that you would become KIA.

These families also knew when their child joined there was that chance also. Denying this fact is absurd.
And their familes should be proud having laid such a sacrifice on the alter of freedom.

And your assumptiuon of the "lies" has still yet to be proven.
We are talking a country the size of Califorina here, that had a madman who had years to hide his wares that the whole world knew he had(including slick willie).

You're absolutely right. However, were I to put my life on the line for my country (or give up my life for that matter-which I'd gladly do), I'd like it to be for the right reason, and not when it's predicated on a lie/falsehood/exaggeration. Here's another way to look at it, since you brought up bill clinton:

No Marine ever died because of Monica's BJs.

And since you brought it up these might not have either if Clinton had put as much effort into being President as he did in getting his nuts off!

Ugh... hate to point out the obvious but Clinton wasn't the one who sent our boys to war. And I never saw Bush Jr. have anything to do w/ terrorism before 9/11. He ain't no hero; he's an opportunist.

Compare:
Bill Clinton, regularly worked 18-20 hour days, 7 days a week for 8 years.
George W. Bush, takes afternoon naps and goes to bed before 9.

Who's putting in the effort?

In response though, it IS possible that if the Congressional Republicans and Ken Starr hadn't wasted so many man-hours and so much of the taxpayers money and the president's time, then MAYBE what you said could have some validity. But nooooooo, every time he tried to take some action against iraq/kosovo/bosnia he must be pulling a "Wag the Dog" scenario.

He was waggin' something - she was a dog but that's besides the point. Clinton was mouthing off about WMD's and Saddam throughout his presidency - and that was about the extent of waht he did. There are plenty of sources if you have doubts.

Educate yourself: <a href="http://www.collegedictionary.net/Features/cul_notes.html">Wag the Dog Scenario</a>

Besides, my points were about Bush's lies, not Clinton's failures :)

Um...Do the American soldiers in Iraq think the war is over? As long as those brave men and women are fighting and dying, I don't consider the war over.

I don't need to educate myself - I already have more of it than I can afford - I am familiar with the movie plot - probably modeled after a model politician like Clinton - there is no scandal to cover up in the current administration. Besides! Clinton's years as president used up all the good lies that were left.

Actaully, Wag The Dog was conceptualized before the Clinton scandal broke. It just had some good timing.

I wonder why the topic was called 'liberal lies' if door didn't think the liberals actually lied. Hmm.

My favourite Bush organization lie/coverup/whatever is still the one about getting elected. Yeah, some liberals overexaggerated the deaths the war would cause, but would you rather they be accurate?

Since "they" are demanding perfection then yes - a little accuracy would be nice.

LOL

Don't do what I was doing and actually respond to this troll.

Careful, Sparhawk. Liquor Dealer may be a dedicated advocate of all the things that are wrong with America, but he's also a respected and valued member of the community. No need to go throwing nasty names around.

From the military point of view:


As a whole, we liked the Iraq war. It was an ego boost. We conquered a country with a respectable military (for a developing nation) in less time than it took the Germans to sieze Poland (please don't read any more into the analogy than the speed of success).

We are in the military to do a job. Our job is whatever the CiC says we are to do within the limits of the constitution. If he is lying, it falls on the head of every American to remove him from office, just as the responsibility for using military force ultimately rests on the head of every citizen.

Accuracy? Yes I would always prefer accuracy. As tragic as the deaths of our fine men and women are, the death rate among the expeditionary forces is actually lower than that of a similar size population here in the 'states.

Relevance to topic:

"Liberals" (gawd I hate that misnomer) lie. Conservatives lie. Moderates lie. Libertarians and Greens lie. Such is politics my friend, don't fool yourself into thinking you are on the right side.

Damn! Thanks Kadath - I owe ya' one.

Thank you, Liquor Dealer.

This thread was poorly conceived imo, and I have a lot of experience with poorly conceived threads. I think that rather than attack the wording of the initial post, it would be a better idea to let this one die and deal with specific issues brought up here on other threads.

Uh, clearly something happened here that I'm sure I don't want to know about. You're welcome, LD.

man really, if i told somebody they sucked and it turned out they didn't. Would you call me a liar?



P.S. It is not our job to prove anything. UN res. said Saddam had to prove he didn't have WMD. So . . . :p

Before this thread dies, can I just put some input in here as to my take on this whole war? I'd like to explain to kadath what I meant by the world changing.

In 1945 after the fall of Germany to the Allies, Communism rose as the new enemy. Stalin and his country presided over the break up of Germany and confirmed their intention to spread Communism to the rest of the world. This scared the "Free World" allies into a series of political manuevers designed to stop the spread of the Communist ideology The west called this spread the "Domino Theory" and it dictated our international politics for almost 50 years. One part of this policy was the support of dictators who were "at least" not Communists. This led the U.S. into relationships with leaders who were less than desirable. It also lead to people of many countries associating the U.S. with their hated enemies. With the break-up of the Soviet Bloc in the 80's and 90's this pattern of foreign policy remained intact because it had become the "norm", even though it had outlived itself. We still governed our foreign affairs like we did during the Domino Theory era as force of habit. 9/11 changed that. We no longer faced a tangible threat from a specific enemy, but a threat none the less. In some cases this threat was a hatred of the U.S. spawned by our policies from the past. Currently our world is struggling with the response to that threat. How do you deal with an enemy that has no borders, no recognizable governing body? How can you stop a man with a bomb strapped to his chest from killing innocent men, women and children? How do you appease an enemy or compromise with him when his only goal is to kill you? The answer to that is you probably can't, at least not completely. The only avenue we have available is to disrupt the organization that assists them. If we can't stop it completely at least we can make tougher for these people to accomplish their goal of death and destruction. The organized terrorist cells that exist in countries must be dealt with, either by the local government or by someone else if the local government is unable or unwilling to do so. For that reason and that reason alone I supported the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, Iraq and Afghanistan may not be the only countries that need to see the importance of stopping the organization of terrorism. It just seems to me that the world has taken a new tact in international politics. What was prudent then is not prudent now. Things have changed.

As far as this thread is concerned, Liberals do lie although these were not lies. They were "misinformation" tactics- statements designed to cast doubt on the other sides statements (which may or may not have been misinformation also). Don't get me wrong, conservatives lie, too and practice the art of misinformation. Door, your only defense is to be INFORMED. You need to get your information from many sources on both sides of the spectrum, not just from your favorite. Then you need to make you own decision based on the information you have gathered. You may or may not use your emotions to help you decide your opinion, but if you do use emotion in your decision, I strongly suggest that you realize your emotions are not part of your facts supporting your argument

What do you think, kadath? Still think I'm a died-in-the-wool conservative fascist? Remember that these views are my perspective, not a statement of fact. They could indeed be "misinformation" or they could just be the ramblings of a silly old man.

No, geep, I wouldn't say you're a fascist. I still take issue with the statement that 9/11 changed everything, but I completely agree with your assessment that the end of the Cold War changed the face of global conflict. The depolarization did provide America with a new multitude of enemies who could no longer be cowed simply by a massive nuclear arsenal. 9/11 was simply an object lesson. However, I don't think that force of arms is the proper solution, nor do I believe sacrificing freedom in the name of security is ever acceptable. I would rather see my whole family die in a terrorist bombing than let the government imprison innocent people unjustly simply because they are the same racial group as a previous terrorist.
But you're not a silly old man.

not to mention took the longest vaction ever for a US president

Thanks Kadath