Will you folks ever get out of la-la land. Bush knew exactly why he requested authority to wage war in Iraq and he knew exactly why he invaded Iraq. I knew exactly why I supported Bush on the war. The only people confused about it are people like you.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Again, Krugman shows his inability to look at an issue with an open mind. George Will got it right:

Opinion: Editorials & Letters | "GEORGE WILL: Obama?s Olympic speech was narcissistic blather" | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

People on the right simply got a laugh out of the arrogance from Obama.

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2713837]Will you folks ever get out of la-la land. Bush knew exactly why he requested authority to wage war in Iraq and he knew exactly why he invaded Iraq. I knew exactly why I supported Bush on the war. The only people confused about it are people like you.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

He knew exactly that his reasons for invading iraq were false. I'm not confused about it at all. You seem to be. Do you not accept the FACT that we went to war under false pretenses? Do you not accept the FACT that Iraq was in no way, directly or indirectly, responsible for 9/11? Do you not accept the FACT that Iraq posed no threat what so ever to the U.S?

Yes he knew why he went there, what he told the rest of the country was one lie after the other. So you are right, he knew what he was doing, lying to the American public and Congress to get what he wanted. And you support that?

There are many threads on this subject. I was not lied to, I know why I supported the war. I would never support a war based on a speech or someone's rhetoric. Your problem is really with Congress, not me. Then when Bush was re-elected, he got the votes he needed to continue the war from the American people. Why don't you face those facts?

I face those facts. The American people were lied to. They were told we had to attack Iraq or they would attack us first with WMD's. When I was told this by my president I believed it, and supported the war at that point. When I found out that He blatantly lied to me, He then lost my support.

It is funny to me how some people get "lied to" and others don't. For example I don't believe Obama and therefore I would never say I was "lied to" regarding what he does. If I think someone is dishonest and the issue is important enough (which war is) my job is to not rest until the truth is told. Liberals all over the world should have been doing something when they had a chance. And do something, like right now with Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea. The seeds are being sowed right now for what is going to happen in 4 or 8 years from now. The window for peaceful resolution of conflict is open now.

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

And now you are going to believe, without question, Obama when he makes his prime time speech on Afghanistan. I got it. And you think I have a problem.:rolleyes:

People don't believe they were lied to, they were. Average americans(including you) don't have access to top secret intelligence reports, so we have no choice but to believe what our leaders tell us. We have no way to independantly research the reasons given. When it was later proved that bush lied to us, that's when people got pissed off.

And if you read my post #559 you will see that I don't believe in the war in afghanistan. I have no idea what obama's position is there because he hasn't made it clear

so far, Obama stays the same on Patriot Act provisions, not reducing the troops in Afghanistan, and Gitmo still open.

I'm not sniping at the man, this is just where we are today in comparison to his promises from last year election time.

I don't need top secret intelligence reports to know Ahmadinejad of Iran wants the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons and that he will do it or did it - and secondarily I know what he wants to blow off the face of the map. And therefore I don't need a President's speech to tell me what I want to do Ahmadinejad before he does it to me. The same was true with Sadaam. Like I said the window for peaceful resolution is open, I hope we can take advantage of it but it takes both sides. I already know what type of candidate I am going to support in 2012, just like I knew in 2000. The guy I help get elected in 2012 is not going to put up with bullshit from people like Ahmadinejad.


I hope history is not repeated. But it looks like I know what my view is and it looks like you are going to get "lied to" again.

We were lied to, like it or not that's the facts. Honestly I think the more important fact is we're still being lied to and it isn't limited to anyone one person or one party. They're pretty much all lying to us. I watched a story today about campaign contributions and voting on spending today. Senator after Senator (Dem and GOP alike) stood before the camera and, with a straight face, told people the fact they accepted 10's of thousands of dollars from (insert defense, health care, energy corp etc... here) and it in no way influenced their vote on spending millions, sometimes billions, of tax payer dollars on the very corporations giving them money. Bullshit. Complete and utter BULLSHIT. The whole systems messed up and it's been messed up long before anyone ever heard of Clinton, Bush or Obama. Until people wake up and realize these sleaze balls running things are being bought off to spend millions and billions of tax payer funds on weapons systems we don't need and funneling cash to health care corporations that spend as little of that cash on actual health patient health care we're all screwed.

How's Obama doing? He's screwed just like the rest of us and unless people start working together to solve these problems and stop falling for these fake, corporate induced/funded outrages we're all gonna remain screwed.

It must be nice not to need any sort of evidence to come to such a profound decision like going to war. All inspections and intelligence that have been released to the american public say that Iran in no way has now or in the forseeable future will have a nuclear weapon. And it must also be nice to be able to read someones mind and know what his exact intentions are. I understand now why you supported bush going to war, you both share the same supernatural powers of fortelling the future as well as mind reading:thumbsup:

That was a mistranslation, actually. He never said that. Khrushchev didn't say "we will bury" you either.

But hey, keep right on "knowing" what you "know".

Ok... so a Nobel Peace Prize for Obama. Does anybody else find that ludicrous? I sincerely hope the man publicly thanks George Bush for making it so easy to seem peace-loving by comparison.

Yeah you know the last guy was bad when all you have to do is show up to work to win a Nobel Prize.

no, he brokered peace, between Professor Gates and that police officer.

see he did something to deserve it.

I have beer all the time. And I'm also not George W Bush. Nobel Peace Prize for me!

I'm interested in how they're is going to respond to this news. Even the staunchest Obama fans I know think this is pretty ridiculous. It's not like the White House lobbied for it or did anything to bring it about--that's not how the Nobel Prize works. But for some reason it seems self-congratulatory.

I think it highlights a problem in tone that's been present since the inauguration. Obama the candidate came across as human and real and honest. Obama the president seems smug, somehow.

I work in Democratic politics and even I don't know anyone who thinks he deserves the peace prize, if that tells you anything.

"We" were not lied to, perhaps you should say "I". Personally, I don't accept being "lied to" - I won't accept what is told to me as truth unless I verify it. If I accept something as truth, I take personal responsibility for it.

---------- Post added at 02:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

I think you know that is not what I wrote, so what is your point of twisting what I wrote?

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

I was paraphrasing.

However, when someone makes a direct threat or a direct provocative action against our country, our allies, I tend to forever change my view of that person or that country. That's just me, I am not forgiving under those circumstances. The easiest way to keep people like me under control is to not provoke us, and if you do understand that people like me need help in preventing the situation from getting out of control. I am honestly saying what needs to be done. There are a lot of people like me in this country.

Im sorry, are you serious? The things that you say are getting more and more ridiculous.

So a lie is not based on whether a statement is knowingly false, but on whether someone accepts it, and if that someone accepts it, it is that person's fault?



As far as the nobel peace prize, that is BS, but Henry Kissinger also won that, and Kissinger was evil.

I am sorry for not explaining the difference between a "lie" and being "lied to". Being "lied to", suggests that you are a victim of the lie, that you bought into the lie, that you acted in a manner based on the lie. I don't accept being a victim of a lie, I don't get "lied to".

Ace you were told one thing and you believed it. It has now been proven to be completely untrue. How is that not being lied to?

Ace, you don't sound like a very nice person to know... you apparently don't trust anything anyone says, have no sympathy for anyone who does, and also apparently expect others to babysit "people like you" to prevent you from escalating situations because you can't handle your own reactionary impulses? Sounds like the guy in a bar who insists on taking every little insult "outside." There are consequences for actions, and being unable to control your reactions doesn't change that, and certainly doesn't make other people responsible for walking on eggshells around you.

yeah, well i don't quite get the peace prize thing either. i assume, however, that he got in in part for not being george w bush, and in part for the actions so far relative to palestine.

but even so, i don't quite get it.

There was clearly a dearth of good candidates.

Just stating my position, I don't think he deserved the Nobel Peace prize either.
My guess is with his popularity around the world, his rhetoric about a nuclear free world are moving to some, but I'd rather see it go to someone who's actually done something to deserve it.

Ace, you were lied to. Bush justified his war with lies to the American people, and the world. That includes you.
Maybe somewhere in your mind you have the delusion that because you and Bush were on the same camp, anything he said to get America in a war with Iraq was fine. So he only "lied" to people who didn't agree with him.
Sorry, but that's not how it works, you were lied to.

I did not support the war in Iraq based on intel reports suggesting they had WMD. I also understood the intel reports had a probability of being incorrect.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

I am what I am. I don't understand how people like you can hear a direct threat and pretend it away. You don't need to "babysit" me, I am just helping you understand people like me, do with it what you will. I will live in peace and freedom with everyone who wants the same. I am not a threat to anyone, but I am not a pacifist. Are you? If not what is the difference between you and I?

I am not pretending it away, but I will also not claim responsibility for another person's instability. There is a big difference between not being a pacifist and feeling the need to respond to every provocation to the point where you freely admit needing others to keep you from escalating the situation out of control. Differentiate yourself all you want, but that's exactly the kind of cowboy attitude, for lack of a better phrase, that got us where we are today.

Bloody frickin' joke. If he had actually accomplished some of the things he promised (leaving aside for now whether they are good or bad), I'd understand it. But a prize for, basically, having good intentions? By that standard lots and lots of people, including my mother in law, qualify. And my mother in law can use the prize money more than Obama can.

Did I hear that the deadline for nominations for the Peace Prize were 11 days after Obama took office? Is that correct? I thought they were talking about the nomination process, but I could be mistaken.

"I judged myself by my intentions, while the world was judging me by my actions"

it's nice to know that the world is now judging you by your intentions and no longer actions or achievements.

The pussification of America isn't just for America anymore, it's spread to the rest of the world.

well, the clearest achievement, the most obvious one, is not being george w. bush.
that in itself increased significantly the chances for peace in the world.

it's no wonder conservatives are particularly irked by this. the nobel peace prize was awarded to celebrate the fact you don't still have power.


but on another level, i still don't really get it.
i mean, loquitor's mother-in-law is also not george w. bush.
i assume.

my mother in law is decidedly not George W. Bush. She's much nicer. And a liberal democrat, too. Besides being the mother of my lovely wife.

And RB, I'm not really conservative. If you've ever seen my comments on social issues you'd know that.

But other than that, my reaction is ........ WTF? And understand, I happen to like the guy. I just don't see how his getting a Nobel Peace Prize makes even a tiny bit of sense.

Maybe the prize was awarded as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you didn't support the war because of the wmd's then why did you support it? Did you believe he was going to attack us? If so you were lied to.

As far as hearing direct threats against us, I have no idea what your talking about. There is no country that has made a threat against us in any way.

aside

loquitor: i wasn't referring to you in the top part of my last post. i can see why you'd like i was, though. i just thought the fact that your mother-in-law was also not george w bush in the same way as barack obama is to be funny.

I don't think Obama deserved it and the fact that they gave it to him means that it isn't worth all that much anyway. If I were him, I'd turn it down.

Well, you know how the cliche goes about mothers-in-law. Mine is an anti-cliche.

The Nobel prize has given rise to some hilarity, though. I have seen some websites that now are putting Obama's name forward for the Heisman Trophy.

If Obama would have turned it down we would have to listen Republicans complain about how smug Obama is because he turned down the peace prize....

Obama didn't ask to be nominated, he didn't ask for the award. It was given to him. There really isn't much of a story here, lets move on and worry about some real issues.

I wouldn't be concerned about Republicans complaining. That's about all they're good at these days. I'm just saying, fuck a Nobel Peace Prize, it's all pomp with little substance. It doesn't mean anything, and if I were Obama, I'd turn it down and tell them that if they still had the desire in a few years they could give it to me after I had done something more substantive in terms of world peace.

I find this whole thing hilarious in light of the facts that;

1: Mr. Obama is continuing the aggressive wars of his predecessors, has expanded the scope of one conflict into a neighboring (and allegedly allied) nation, and is now making threatening Likunik-sounding noises in the direction of Persia, and;

2: Mr. Obama continues to operate the illegal torture/internment facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The only motive I can think of for this is, in light of the above facts, is as above, "Oh thank God he's not George Bush." It certainly wasn't because of anything Mr. Obama has actually done or shows any signs of doing, and certainly wasn't because of the World Apology Tour, which my contacts in the UK and Czech Republic described as long-winded and insincere blather.