PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: PROLIFE who wrote (417360)	6/21/2003 11:30:52 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) of 769670

tomwatsons.homeip.net Sat Jun 21 14:20:26 EDT 2003 Why do "they" believe President Bush is Lying? But Who are "they"? Under all the analysis and talk about where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction(WMD) is the theme that President George W. Bush lied to the American people and the world stating there were WMD's in Iraq and President George W. Bush knew that none were there. I hear talk and cross talk and some is dumb and some is dumber. Any discussion of the issues seems to use simplifications of talking points and both sides of the issue make dumb arguments. In America there are mostly good people who really don't follow the issues in detail. There are zealous advocates who track what there talking heads say and ignore any argument presented to the contrary. Those with their minds made up will not be influenced by any idea that does not fit in with their current positions. It seems many arguments on both sides use rhetoric to appeal to a fringe that cannot be influenced. The problem is that often arguments have within their logic or rationale very cynical implications or inferences that discredit the moral value of the argument and may make many reasonable people who hear it get the inference but not the logic. One such argument I find dumb is the idea of discrediting suggestions that President Bush is not lying about the existence of WMD's in Iraq because former President Bill Clinton stated clearly they existed and action was required because of WMDs danger. The rationale is the if Clinton said they existed and no one objected then no one should object to President Bush repeating the same truth and acting on that same claim. I find such arguments dumb. President Clinton's credibility for telling the truth is non existent. President Clinton was impeached for lying. Other actions like the pardon's have further convinced many in America that President Clinton can never be counted on to tell the truth. The proffer President Bush is telling the truth because he is repeating statements of the impeached liar President Clinton is just not very bright. In the conservative camp several had made the argument that the WMD's are there or in Syria and wait and see. The argument is made that Saddam Hussien had years to hide WMDs and it took years and decades to find individuals like the uni-bomber and those weapons do exist will be found eventually. Those arguments are OK but they rely on a leap of faith that the WMD's do exist or did exist when the War started in March. When the WAR started I believed they existed based upon all the news I had read, heard and seen. It is possible that they do exist now and the above arguments will be born out. It is also possible that WMD's in large amounts, the chemicals or biotoxins were not stored or hidden or shipped out of the country. If they do exist and are not found then over time more and more will come to believe that they did not exist. So I prefer to assume that the did not and then examine the meaning of that reality. In that reality again I ask how could one conclude President Bush knew that and ignored it and went to War based upon a lie. In this case the complexity of analysis has layers and layers of considerations. It is like an onion inside and onion inside and onion. Where does one start. What is the approach to showing simple connections of logic that clearly show a conclusion one way or the other. I see no clear smoking guns. I see endless facts and details. Some details support either case depending on interpretation. Some facts suggest there were WMD's and other facts suggest that there were none. There is testimony they exist and a program existed and testimony they were destroyed and did not. No direct analysis of all data will ever lead to a reasonable proof that President Bush lied. There is so much information and selecting some subset and giving it weight over some other can be used to reason that there was not conclusive proof that WMD's existed or did not exist. That is my belief about what is known and I also believe WMD's may or may not be found. Such an ambiguous state is not pleasant but it is the norm in so many instances. The talking heads will go on. Those who believe that President Bush is honest will continue to support the President and those who believe the President lied or have a vested interest in making other believe the President lied will attack with suggestions and analysis and conclusions that the President lied. Today I think I will use insider information as a measure of President Bush's honesty. And using insider information compare President Bush and President Clinton with what I believe is truth or my personal life experience filter that guides what I believe is truth. David Frum worked as a speech writer in the White House through the horrific events of 9-11 and the War in Afghanistan. Mr. Frum wrote an insider account of his time and personal contacts with President Bush. The title of that book is "The RIght Man." I've read that book and it confirmed that President Bush is exactly who I thought he was. President Bush is honesty, character, compassion civility and the strength of steel. Finding no WMD's in Iraq is a sign of honesty. It would be easy to plant evidence. When and if any additional WMD's are found my opinion will not change. President Bush knows right and wrong and his past action have demonstrated he has the virtue to what is right. To evaluate former President Clinton there is also an insider who has written about what he witnessed. Just this week I say Lt Col Buzz Patterson speaking on C-span. Lt Col Patterson was talking about his time serving as a military aide to President Clinton. The title of that book is called "Dereliction of Duty." I ordered that book, but the comments I heard from Lt Col Patterson also confirms my assessment of President Clinton. President Clinton was dishonesty, selfishness, cruelty, arrogance and the strength of an over cooked piece of spaghetti. President Clinton was alleged to be very bright and therefor also must have known what was right and wrong. President Clinton actions often showed no virtue.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next