Yes, there is indeed a difference between telling the truth (absence of lying) and telling us something that is factual. It doesn't take Emmanuel Kant to figure that one out. So Bush said things that weren't factual. Was he lying when he did so? Maybe yes, maybe no. I was just listening to Sean Hannity, and he was saying emphatically, as he always spouts his opinion, just as those who are always sure they are right, correct, and moral always do with such condescending and self righteous dogmatic certainty.... He was saying that "Bush did not lie, we all know that." I would ask him how he came to this "knowledge" of Bush's inner intentions. People can believe Bush didn't lie. People believed Reagan didn't lie, or have anything to do with Iran Contra. People can believe Nixon when he said he was not a crook (hell....Coulter probably would give him a medal for his part in Watergate and the cover up). People can believe Clinton didn't inhale, or have "sex with that woman." People can believe Teddy Kennedy had nothing to do with Mary Joe Kopechni. What they believe, however has no direct connection to fact necessarily. Provide factual evidence and proof that Bush isn't lying, and wasn't lying....and you may sound like someone other than a right wing spin doctor, and while you are at it, provide proof and fact that you favorite tactic is not to spin your belief system as the "right" and only non-silly, non-loony belief system. Kant would suspend belief of Bush's veracity and inner motivations without proof, why won't you?
Non-responsive: You asked, "Who armed Osama?" You did not ask, "Who armed the mujahideen?" Undoubtedly, some of the arms supplied to Afghan rebels ended up with Osama, and though we, of course, can't say what Osama and the gang would have been doing throughout the '90s if the Afghan war had never occurred, it's probably fair to consider Al Qaeda a product of the Afghan conflict and at least in part an unintended consequence of US support for the rebels against the Soviets. It was one of the last of the Cold War "lesser evils," and, though one may choose to argue over almost any one of them, the overall result is one that few Americans are ashamed of. Your question appeared to imply that the US was a particular sponsor of Osama and Al Qaeda. Your documentation does not demonstrate that at all. As for Saddam, you did not ask, "Who provided Saddam with some materials useful for chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?" You asked, "Who armed Saddam?" The T-55s, T-72s, APCs, AK-47s, artillery pieces, training, doctrine, and so on, and so on, mainly came from the countries I previously mentioned, especially the Soviets. Even regarding the narrow issue of chemical weapons, it's not clear at all that US help was essential - that is, that Saddam couldn't have gotten what he needed and wanted from elsewhere - as many countries, many with much less technical expertise and much smaller financial resources, have done. (Even the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo was able to acquire Sarin, for instance.) Nor do you respond to the question of what difference it would make even if one assumed the worst about past US involvement with Osama and Saddam other than, as I suggested, to reinforce the US responsibility for dealing with them. This isn't just a rhetorical point, for, in many ways, regardless of the specifics of foreign aid, alliances of convenience, and irrelevant blame-laying, OBL and SH are both very much creatures of the international economic and political system the US and others historically supported. Precisely because a lack of interest in the so-called internal affairs of states like Iraq and Afghanistan led to great danger for the world, and great suffering for the peoples of those and other countries, some of us are quite wiling to think about alternatives, and the Bush Administration has outlined a different approach. Nor, typically, do you specify what your alternatives, whether specifically regarding OBL and Saddam, or generally, would be. You're content with empty cheering for your side and attacks on the other side in the form of vague generalizations about "real solutions" and "long-term security." That may work for you and your like-minded friends, but it isn't a basis for making serious policy in the real world.
I suspect Kant would not presume that Bush was lying without good reason to do so, as he would be aware that making baseless charges of dishonesty in all likelihood would involve a violation of the categorical imperative and of a number of other imperatives, too. The evidence for the main case on the war was overwhelming, without any resort to secret intelligence or any speculation as to Bush's "inner intentions." Specific items can be questioned, and one may or may not find the explanations put forward by the Administration or its supporters satisfactory, but how would anyone be able to prove for you the general proposition that Bush isn't or wasn't lying? You have your suspicions, apparently because you have suspicions about all politicians. You're allowed to, but why should anyone else care until you provide a tangible basis for them, and for their significance? If all politicians are liars, as you seem to believe, then we're stuck with a liar anyway, even if we get rid of Bush. As a general proposition, the Administration was, in my opinion, quite candid about its Iraq policy and aims, in all its ramifications and complexities. Contrary to frequently heard assertions, it has, for instance, actively downplayed the notion of a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 - despite some circumstantial evidence that an Administration that felt its case was lacking and that was determined to exaggerate might have seized on. Similarly, when the banned nuclear components and documentation were uncovered in an Iraqi nuclear scientist's backyard, the Administration immediately came out with comments to the effect that the material was not a "smoking gun" on an active nuclear weapons program. And if the Administration was bent on deception, it has had ample opportunity to fake bio/chem test results from suspicious sites and compounds. In short, until a good reason is produced for us to believe that the Administration deliberately fabricated evidence or knowingly misled the American people in any substantial way - a specific item of any real significance that went beyond misstatement or, as AAA put it, basic advocacy in a political context - charges of deception will tend to say more about the accuser than the accused.
Who's stopping you? __________________ -tatertrader No one. But maybe you should answer the same question. You are trying to shove your prejudices down the conservative throat. I am saying we should divide the country and you can do as you damn well please but so can we. Seems fair to me.
Through an unusual set of circumstances, I have been given documentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden. I am looking at the document as I write this story from my hotel room overlooking the Tigris River in Baghdad. One of the lawyers with whom I have been working for the past five weeks had come to me and asked me whether a list of the 600 people closest to Saddam Hussein would be of any value now to the Americans. I said, yes, of course. He said that the list contained not only the names of the 55 ''deck of cards'' players who have already been revealed, but also 550 others. When I began questioning him about the list, how he obtained it and what else it showed, he asked would it be of interest to the Americans to know that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden. I said yes, the Americans have, so far as I am aware, have never been able to prove that relationship, but the president and others have said that they believe it exists. He said, ''Well, judge, there is no doubt it exists, and I will bring you the proof tomorrow.'' So today he brought me the proof, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is right. The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.'' The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. . . . That is the story of the ''Honor Roll of 600,'' and why I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him. It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States. But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts. Up until this time, I have been skeptical about these claims. Now I have changed my mind. There is, however, one big problem remaining: They are both still at large and the combined forces of the free world have been unable to find them. Until we find and capture them, they will remain a threat â Saddam with the remnants of his army and supporters in combination with the worldwide terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden. Those who know Judge Merritt -- a lifelong Democrat and a man of unimpeachable integrity -- will know just how significant this is