I think I made my point about me not trusting the BUSH ADMINISTRATION, not all Republicans mind you. I then offered instances of past misdeeds by the type of Republicans Bush has chosen to surround himself with. I beleive you responded by opening a "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" thread where you took another cheap dig at me.

If that is considered "bias", then yeah, i'm biased. I think I have good reason to be. If you want one, just one, specific example of why I distrust these guys, lets go back to the Iraq war. No not the one last year, the one a decade ago....


Quote:

When George H. W. Bush ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf – to reverse Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait – part of the administration case was that an Iraqi juggernaut was also threatening to roll into Saudi Arabia.
Citing top-secret satellite images, Pentagon officials estimated in mid–September that up to 250,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks stood on the border, threatening the key US oil supplier.


But when the St. Petersburg Times in Florida acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, no Iraqi troops were visible near the Saudi border – just empty desert.

"It was a pretty serious fib," says Jean Heller, the Times journalist who broke the story.

The White House is now making its case. to Congress and the public for another invasion of Iraq; President George W. Bush is expected to present specific evidence of the threat posed by Iraq during a speech to the United Nations next week.

But past cases of bad intelligence or outright disinformation used to justify war are making experts wary. The questions they are raising, some based on examples from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, highlight the importance of accurate information when a democracy considers military action.

"My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence,"
........"That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong.

The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified.

In war, some facts less factual






And I'm supposed to "just trust them" or else I have an unreasonable hatred of Bush?? I mean just how gullible do you have to be??
When it comes to THESE particular people and these particular peoples obsessions with Iraq, I take everything with a grain of salt, not because I'm a lib or biased or what have you. Because of experience. I don't know why that is so unreasonable or so hard to fathom.



What i'm saying is that these people have been proven to be liars and manipulators in the past. They're known for that. That being said, if we're being driven to war on the basis of statements made by these people, then the sensible thing to do is to make sure our facts are correct and haven't been manipulated to acheive the conclusions these proven liars want.

Now if a segment of our population, motivated by partisan devotion, don't want to ask the hard questions, then in a democracy, someone has to. Especially when it involves nothing less than war. Despite some peoples juvenile view of war as ass kickings and video-game style entertainment, war is the most serious and grave endeavour any nation can make. I think it's reasonable to expect the reasons for engaging in war to be not only true but good enough for the American public to back you up, without embellishment of those facts.

I won't discuss this link but it does mention some of that intelligence that Bush had about WMD's from Iraqi defectors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1052334,00.html

Yes yes, here it comes, "but Clinton had the same intelligence". Yep. But he didn't embellish it nor declare that it be urgent that we go to war ASAP based on that intel. If he did, then a close examination of that evidence would also be warranted and i'm sure would have happened. Not just by myself but by the likes of hannity and Rush as well.

Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-20 8:23 PM.