Kerry's Purple Hearts

[john5746]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0602-04.htm

 

Sorry, last one requires registration, this is same thing

[john5746]

Actually, I'm not caught up in the lie and character stuff like others.

 

I think Bush, Gore and Kerry have good enough character. Gore suffered because of Clinton.

 

It is a smokescreen mostly. Yeah, I don't want another Clinton scandel, but I will take it over a bad economy and mistaken war any day.

[Douglas]

There comes a point where someone along the line has to accept responsibility for the mistake, whether it be a mistake made by their department or their subordinates. This should definitely apply where massive consequences result from policies that are based on the mistaken advice.

Bush, who was basing his decisions (vis-a-vis WMD's) on intelligence reports from several countries. He was mis-informed (not mislead). I read the U.K. intelligence report, they blamed themselves for over estimating/under estimating etc.

Then the games began.

[Pangloss]

John, thanks for the link. I was pretty familiar with the quote but I wanted to see what you were reading, because I've never seen a really good analysis OF that quote, only op-ed pieces that *take advantage* of that quote to do anti-Bush spin. I had hoped for the former in this case, but I was disappointed. It's just another ABB piece. Oh well, it was worth a shot.

 

At any rate, what is it about that scene that you feel might have been a lie? Specifically, I mean. Are you saying it was a lie because you feel the president knew about 9/11 before it happened, i.e. a massive conspiracy? Or more along simpler lines; saying that he had seen something that he had not actually seen? Or something in-between, perhaps?

 

In the case of massive conspiracy, we have the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report to lay those fears to rest. As for the latter, I don't see that as a big deal if he just mis-spoke. People do that sort of thing all the time. He might have just mixed-up the fact that he saw it later that morning on tape (like most of us did).

 

But I'm no apologist -- on the contrary I see myself in the role of radical centrist, determined to get at the truth. If you think that has larger relevence, I'm all ears.

[atinymonkey]

What do you mean by "strawman me"?

 

Suggesting things I never said so you can dismiss them. I had not mentied Bush's lies before you attacked that viewpoint.

 

I don't see any proof that Bush lied here. What you have is basically this (which I knew before we began this discussion' date=' so you've told me nothing I didn't already know):

 

1) The evidence of WMDs was incorrect.

2) Some of the evidence may have been manufactured by somebody. [/quote']

 

Some of the evidence was manufactured with the knowledge of both governments. That's the crux of the reports.

 

Back to square one.

 

Where we have provided copious offical documnetation expaining in painstaking detail the manufacture and dissemination of lies by the govenment, and you dismiss it with handwaving.

 

I certainly agree with your general point that people often lie. I don't have a problem with people expressing the OPINION that Bush lied. But so far it's just opinion, not fact.

 

No, it's your opinion. I've presented the official, government approved, signed sealed and 100% authentic honest to God facts of the matter.

 

You are presented evidence that you ignore, claim it's too complex, claim it's too simplified, claim it's not real or just dismiss it out of hand.

 

You can't summon up the ability (or perhaps courage) to dig around for a single scrap of evidence to support your propositions.

 

You make sweeping generalizations and refuse to admit mistakes. All people lie, even the sponge faced angelic little baby Jesus.

 

You appear to have elevated the alcoholic Bush monkey to deity status were every burp and whistle issued from his craw is to be taken as doctrine.*

 

 

*This bit isn't actually true, but it was funny.

[john5746]

At any rate' date=' what is it about that scene that you feel might have been a lie? Specifically, I mean. Are you saying it was a lie because you feel the president knew about 9/11 before it happened, i.e. a massive conspiracy? Or more along simpler lines; saying that he had seen something that he had not actually seen? Or something in-between, perhaps?

[/quote']

 

I just did a google on Bush lies to pull that up. I don't spend alot of time on political websites. My point is that Bush will stretch the truth just like anyone else to make a point. Wasn't that memory "seared" in his mind? wouldn't he remember where,when, etc.

 

I don't blame 9/11 on Bush, no conspiracy. He responded well as most would. I don't think he invaded Iraq to line the pockets of Haliburton, etc. He just jumped the gun - that's it. I am very glad he wasn't Pres during the Cold War, we probably wouldn't be here.

[Pangloss]

Well that strikes me as a reasonable position. As do the points about administration exaggerations and distortions in general. I guess it's just the "big lie" angle where I stop short. But I definitely understand how people get to that opinion, and I can't really fault them for it. Like I've posted before, there are a lot of things that bother me about the Bush administration.

[Phi for All]

I don't think he invaded Iraq to line the pockets of Haliburton, etc.

I don't think that was the only reason, but since it is a fact that Bush and many of his administration were adamant about invading Iraq from day one in office, and since Cheney's ties with Halliburton were still strong, I think you'd have to be a bit naive to believe there was no connection between the White House and Halliburton's no-bid contracts. I know you're thinking those contracts were given by the Army Corp of Engineers, but come on....

 

One of the big explanations for why Halliburton was given the green light was the time factor, the urgency of need required. To quote the GAO Report report to Congress: For example, the Army Corps of Engineers properly awarded a sole-source contract for rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure to the only contractor that was determined to be in a position to provide the services within the required time frame.

 

But if Iraq was the plan from the beginning, why wait until the urgency requires the vice-president's former company to do the work? It's one thing to be opportunistic and take advantage of market circumstances, but creating the urgency that lets only one company do the work, and it just happens to be Cheney's old firm?!? is just too much of a coincidence. Of course they did everything by the book from there on, but it's the delay/foreknowledge that bothers me most about the Cheney/Halliburton deal.

[Pangloss]

I actually like the fact that the rebuilding of Iraq wasn't given to the lowest bidder. But it was just plain stupid to give it to a firm so closely tied to the administration. Of course, finding a firm that can do that job that *doesn't* donate vast sums to either (or both!) parties is an exercise in futility. This goes back to one of my favorite "talking points": Getting big business out of politics.

[Phi for All]

I agree, and I started a new thread. We're starting to get pretty off topic from Kerry's Purple Hearts!

[Kingpin1989]

A business, being an orginization created by people, is subject to the environment to enact change...any business chosen for rebuilding will enevitably become persuant of a key suppporter's goals...an "excersize in futility" indeed...

[atinymonkey]

I really don't understand what your getting at there.

 

Sorry.

[Phi for All]

Perhaps you could explain that to us all. If it weren't for the misspells (no big deal), I would have thought you pasted it in from some obscure economics text.

 

Are you saying that because Halliburton got the job during the present admministration, they'll do anything to support the administration so the contract stays intact?

[r1dermon]

halliburton wasnt given a no-bid contract. they were given an unbiddable contract, where, no other company had the manpower or resources to do the job at hand. surely i believe this was fabrication by the bush administration, overemphasising their needs so that the only company it COULD go to would be halliburton, but it is true, that halliburton was the only company that could meet their needs.

[Sayonara]

Because splitting the requirements into two separate biddable contracts is just soooo difficult.

 

It is a bit fishy tbh.

[Phi for All]

Because splitting the requirements into two separate biddable contracts is just soooo difficult.

More stifling of free enterprise and smaller business, ensuring that the mega-corporations get mega-bigger.

 

The argument that costs are cut by dealing with just one company doesn't cut it with me. Coordination administration and documentation may increase slightly but overall costs would be drastically cut by having several companies compete for smaller chunks of the work.

[Douglas]

Because splitting the requirements into two separate biddable contracts is just soooo difficult.

 

It is a bit fishy tbh.

Halliburton got more dough out of Clinton than they did out of Bush.

Halliburton subcontracts a lot of their work out, so a lot of people get a piece of the pie.

[Phi for All]

Halliburton got more dough out of Clinton than they did out of Bush.

Halliburton subcontracts a lot of their work out' date=' so a lot of people get a piece of the pie.[/quote']They had 8 years with Clinton. Give Bush time.

 

Besides, we've already determined that it's not the administration that gives them the money, it's the Army Corps of Engineers. What is being objected to is the administration creating the circumstances and the urgency that sets up the contracts so only Halliburton can do the work.

[Sayonara]

Halliburton got more dough out of Clinton than they did out of Bush.

Halliburton subcontracts a lot of their work out' date=' so a lot of people get a piece of the pie.[/quote']

Attributes of Haliburton aren't really relevant to policies further up the chain, are they?

 

[budullewraagh]

Halliburton subcontracts a lot of their work out, so a lot of people get a piece of the pie.

cheney's mysterious $65 million/year income seems to be a perfect example

[Douglas]

Attributes of Haliburton aren't really relevant to policies further up the chain' date=' are they?

 

[/quote']

Ask Kerry, he'll tell you...big time. (rolls eyes)

 

budullewraagh. 65 Million? I read 150 thousand.

[Pangloss]

Anybody who watched ABC News during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions knows that there's no difference between the way big business operates with Democrats versus Republicans. I think some of the sentiments expressed above about Halliburton are interesting and relevent on the level of "figuring out what happened", but in terms of deciding what's wrong with society (the bigger picture), I grow very weary of partisan bickering on this subject -- people who hold up Halliburton as an example of how Kerry would be better than Bush. The problem is pervasive and has nothing to do with "conservative" or "liberal".

 

And it will go away when WE do something about it. Like paying attention to who is running against our incumbant House representative. If you're American, and reading this, you have one to vote for this fall. Do you know who his or her opponent is? What they stand for? How they got their funding?

 

WHY NOT?

[YT2095]

It reflects his character. If he was dishonest 30 or 40 years ago, whay makes you think he isn't dishonest now. I don't want a dishonest president.

well that`s a crap arg from the get-go!

has anyone here ever stole candy from a shop as a kid?

I know I have, but we`re talking nearly 30 years ago also, but NOW, I`de walk a mile to return a penny that wasn`t mine!!!

 

People change, and thats a GOOD thing mostly, cut him some slack or be judged by your own rules and thoughts! (not nice if done honestly).

[Sayonara]

Ask Kerry, he'll tell you...big time. (rolls eyes)

That doesn't have anything to do with the post you replying to.