Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (16352)	5/10/2005 9:03:50 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361168

The word is simplistic, not simple.

To: Sully- who wrote (16352)	5/10/2005 10:41:48 AM
From: ThirdEye	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361168

The assertion that Bush is a liar is not based, and does not hinge on a single piece of paper. It is based on the preponderance of evidence from many sources, and not even based solely on his specific actions or statements, but also on those of his closest allies as well. We have a combination of factors including the fact that NO WMDs have been found in Iraq, none, against the intelligence reports that, conveniently, have been judged to be honest mistakes. How could Bush have gotten such a dramatically different notion from reality? Either the intelligence was hugely in error, or Bush, along with Rice and Cheney, dramatically exaggerated its import. Cheney is on record with diametrically opposed statements about the connection between Hussein and Al Queda. He insists that the meeting in Prague between Atta and Hussein's secret service took place, when the intelligence agencies say it did not. Rice's statements also hugely exaggerated the issue. We also have an administration that is the most secretive in history, even before 9/11. This combined with the highly controlled nature in which they expose themselves to inquiry and the doublespeak they engage in when talking about their agenda(Healthy Forests Initiative? Energy Bill?), the ways in which they shade the truth when talking about Social Security, protect Bush from any serious questions all create the impression that they don't really want their statements deconstructed at all. Then we have the torture issue. Both Bush and Rummy have lied about that. Bush knows full well that prisoners have been rendered to Uzbekistan, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation and what goes on there. But the fact that he can say we do not condone torture-even when the attorney general of the US has written briefs suggesting it's legal-rings as a hollow denial. Then there's the issue of what the hell is the "democracy" he is exporting. We are the ones setting some of the parameters of the Iraqi government that is forming in such a way as to protect our interest in the northern oil fields under Kurdish control. We also engineered the appointment of a convicted criminal as the new Iraqi oil minister. The US has also prohibited access by the Iraqi government to its own intelligence agency. Yeah, Bush favors "democracy." Our way or the highway. Same thing at home. His pronouncements about governments supporting terrorism being evil cannot conceal the fact that we now are harboring known anti-Castro terrorists in this country. John Ashcroft also released two convicted(in US courts) terrorists from prison to placate the Cuban American community. Bush has also appointed liars to important positions, Eliot Abrams who lied to congress(and there's no dispute about that) and John Negroponte as intelligence chief, who as ambassador to Honduras could not possibly have totally been in the dark about death squads who made dissidents and innocents alike disappear in the 80's. He either knew about it or there simply was no US intelligence capability in Honduras at the time. Which do you think it was? And this comes after Negroponte served as ambassador to Iraq- a perfectly clear and wonderful message to Iraqis, yes? You can deconstruct any single one of these issues in any manner you choose to convince yourself that no actual lying took place. But when does deception become a lie? Only when spoken under oath? When does secrecy combined with exaggeration combined with contradiction combined with hypocrisy become an actual bald-faced intentional lie? You figure it out. But here's a hint: in politics and marketing(something the Busheviks are very good at), perception is reality. Bush is a liar. And that single piece of paper from MI6 is just one more straw.