Robert Steinback weighs in on War on Terror

Just... just... wow.


I'm going to be very fair here, despite the (several) earlier inflammatory posts.

In proven fact, Bush has been responsible for:

* Lying to the American People to promote an imperialist war
* Flatly admitted to wiretapping without due process of law
* Has an administration responsible for several more nefarious acts


Now, my personal opinion of Mr. Bush the man aside, his actions are in line with some of the darker periods of our history where a leader will lie to his country to pursue personal ends. While leaving out a rather amusing potential source for these actions, it's been made pretty clear he wishes to run the country on imperialism and fear at the expense of our civil liberties.

The failing of this is that little term "due process."

To quote:


The courts that have authorized wiretaps in the past are known to just rubberstamp the thing. The fact Mr. Bush authorized going above this (given) due process on his own personal authority is precisely what our founding fathers feared when they wrote the document that has effectively governed this nation for over two centuries. Further, it goes against stated "due process" explicitly written in that document.


The question of whether George W. Bush is an effective leader isn't the point. It is whether he is executing the laws of this nation or choosing to ignore them for his own personal ends. Since a fairly compelling argument has been built by countless people for the latter, even those that usually side with him, "illegal" is just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion.

As for the illusory threat that he has placed in front of our nation that has caused such miasma? If you've read George Orwell's 1984 or other pieces, like Machiavelli's The Prince, you would understand using "the enemy" is textbook where fascism and usurping control over the people are concerned.


And so we come to a very simple conclusion: Mr. Bush's Administration rules with an iron fist. This is precisely what our country has attempted to safeguard against. We, as a nation, need to stand up and face this more potent threat or we are doomed to repeat the darker pages of history.

You should get your weapons and overthrow the government.

People like you are beyond help. "Bush lied" is the central tenant of your religion, that's why you'll never give it up, matter how many times it's explained to you why your belief doesn't make any sense:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512280311dec28,0,7879020.story?coll=chi-newsopinion-hed

Rules with an iron fist. Ha. You should read more. You're not smart.

I've made my case. If you would prefer to resort to personal attacks, I believe my point has been made.


Have a nice day.

Like I said, you're beyond help or discussion. It's just like talking to a deeply religious person. No matter what facts people bring up, your belief will stay the same. I've talked to so many fools like yourself. Any time anyone tells you something that shows you how you're wrong, you dismiss the source as "working for the Republicans".

Notice how you completely ignored what I linked to. Your religion can't handle addressing truths like that.

You're going to lose your mind soon. You're not living in reality. Your hatred of Bush has caused you to believe all kinds of dumb things. Eventually reality is going to catch up with you. Enjoy that.

Perhaps I would be convinced if better debate skills were used. Leveling what is now at least five attacks on my person does nothing to speak to the issue. Rather, it seeks to table it for armchair insults.


But I'll bite. The fact of the matter is actually pretty clear. Did Iraq have those Weapons of Mass Destruction, or any actual concrete evidence of the things presumptively triggering us to go to war? Did they have actual, definable ties to a concrete threat on America, or did they instead just threaten "American interests?" And above all else, do the ends justify the means?


The nature of "the lie" can be debated until the cows come home. The simpler fact is, the message that was packaged and sold to the American people on an imperialist war was a falsity. Not even a matter for interpretation at this point.


The rest falls to conjecture on what our interests are and arguably "should" be. Do I think Iraq could have been a good thing? Sure, it might have been. Do I believe "terrorists" can be pretty dangerous? Certainly.

But none of that goes to address the process our president and his administration took to get there. I am not a believer that the ends justify the means, and even if I were, I'm not too convinced of the current ends either.


And that is that. You're welcome to disagree. But continue to level insults, and I will most certainly continue hitting the report button by each post.

Again, have a nice day.

Blah blah blah. Good job not reading the article I linked to. It has a good explanation about why it is idiotic to believe that "Bush lied". Don't read it though. You have your little speech all set, and accepting that Bush didn't lie would mean you'd have to rewrite the whole thing.

Again, I'm not trying to have a debate with you. You are beyond hope. I just posted that link so you might have a chance to understand that it's dumb to believe that "Bush lied".

You are very sensitive about the "personal insults". Cry some more.

That article was a pretty good summary. After reading it though, I have to stand by my current views.

Oh, I skimmed it. And am of the same opinion Rickard is of it.

Incidentally, ignorance and how it relates to lying and wether or not stating facts that are untrue because of ignorance is lying, is an interesting topic.

I've done some preliminary looking on the internet and haven't found a concensus or popular opinion about it yet.

I would personally say unintentional ignorance where you have gathered as much information as you are able and honestly tried to find the truth, does not lead to a lie. However, people are perfectly capable of ignoring information in order to sustain they're personal beliefs. That is intentional ignorance. As such I would consider facts that are untrue being represented as true because of this ignorance, to be lies.

This is a fun thing to mention because it is both what Stankleberry is accusing Jeffrey of, and what Jeffrey is accusing Bush of.

I agree. Another interesting case study is the "Domino Theory" and its place in justifying the Vietnam War. Which, coincidentally, is another pretty good example of hollow "means" used to sell a nation on fear leading to an imperialist war.


Although I am curious on one thing, Rick. While SS most certainly accused me of being wrong, I'm curious where he was so bold as to call me a "liar." That isn't what I inferred from his posts.

He accused you of intentionally not reading the article, and of being wrong. All together that adds up to an accusation of lying by my above standards .

Also a funny side note. Even though I just said I don't think unintentional ignorance and being wrong = lying, I have been known to be wrong and when I realize it say "oops, I lied."

Although this thread has already been warned for personal attacks, the personal attacks have continued, as such this thread is being closed. Please note that if you are not able to have a discussion without degrading into personal attacks, you will be removed from the SL Forum community.