asheris | (no subject)

From Glider of BMEzine:

Let's see what else is on TV. Pretty funny coverage of Bush's lying over on ABC. Now, maybe you're saying "damn liberal ABC", but realize that what you're actually doing is arguing for media to lie to cover up lies by a politician who you misguidedly believe is on "your side". Anyway, this is what Bush said:

We agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell. And that stands in stark contrast to the statement that my opponent made yesterday, when he said that the world was better off with Saddam in power. I strongly disagree.

Jennings steps in and says (actually intoning and emphasizing the word I'm presenting in bold), "And this is what Mr. Kerry actually said," then cutting to the following clip of Kerry:

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell. But that was not...in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction...that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

Anyway, it was funny to see the media for once call Bush on one of his really blantant lies. Hopefully it'll continue as a general trend, but I doubt it.

What is it with Bush and his utter refusal to actually respond to what's been said, instead of making something up out of whole cloth and shooting that down? I swear to the gods that man has no grounding whatsoever in reality.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"But that was not...in and of itself, a reason to go to war." That is bad judgement, IMO. Many would actually have supported military action to remove Saddam from power for humanitarian reasons. After all, ultra-liberal people who are might be glad that Saddam is gone, always say "but that wasn't why we went in".

From what Kerry said, it is reasonable to infer that had he kept that same view were he in power at the time, he would have left Saddam in power. Yes it is a little bit of hyperbole to equate that to Kerry believing "that the world was better off with Saddam in power". I don't think Bush "lied". He made an incorrect inference.

"Many would actually have supported military action to remove Saddam from power for humanitarian reasons. After all, ultra-liberal people who are might be glad that Saddam is gone, always say "but that wasn't why we went in"."

Because "humanitarian reasons" was the one reason Bush SPECIFICALLY REJECTED from day one as a reason/explanation for why we went in. Had he said we were going in for that reason, that would be a whole 'nother story.

(And if that WAS the reason, why hasn't anything been done about several other brutal dictators in the Middle East and Africa? And why are some of those same brutal dictators called "friends of America" by Bush? Come to think of it, just like Saddam was a "friend to America" back in the 80's, even while he was gassing Kurds.)

Instead, Bush keeps claiming that we went in because Saddam was in league with bin Laden. Which the evidence shows he WAS NOT.

Bush claimed that removing Saddam would reduce world terrorism. IT HAS NOT. In fact, by all accounts, world terrorism has increased in the past 18 months.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still running around free, organizing more terrorists.

In September 2001, Bush was all about hunting down Osama bin Laden and bringing him to justice. By January 2003, it was "Osama who??" This may be the mmost egregious way in which Bush has FAILED the United States, and the world.

As for whether Bush lied or "mis-inferred":

Bush: "he [Kerry] said that the world was better off with Saddam in power."

Kerry: "The satisfaction...that we take in his [Saddam's] downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Kerry said that it's good Saddam's gone, but he added a brutal truth: removing Saddam DID NOT make the world a safer place, as Bush keeps claiming.

Because of HOW the situation in Iraq has been thoroughly mis-handled by the US government, we have created chaos. You don't promise free elections, then APPOINT an interim government. You don't, as you hand over to the interim government, put in laws that CANNOT be changed that give outside contractors blanket immunity from any kind of prosecution, or allow foreign companies to remove nearly ALL of the money they make from the country. You don't spend all your time fixing oil pipelines that are making money for foreign companies, while leaving people without power, potable water, functioning sewers, and medical care.