NeoCon Hypocrits

Originally posted by Kidfinger
First off, could you please stop with the childish name calling and silly insinuations? Please?

What are you talking about? Where have I called you a name? Are you simply belittled by the fact that I make an argument that casts doubt on the opinions that you further as facts?

Now, there was NOTHING unsubstantiated about this. I encounter it daily here on ATS. it is mostly from personal experience when I speak about this.

I have no problem with you using personal experience or what other people have said in your arguments. Simply state them as such and invite comment. Your original post made sweeping statements of fact not opinions. These statements remain unsubstantiated as facts. I will concede that they are opinions held by a number of people but this does not elevate them to the level of facts.

Do you really want me to provide you with proof? Are you telling me you have never heard,read,or saw in the news where Bush said this? Well, ok, here are some links.

www.washingtonpost.com...
www.commondreams.org...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.patridiots.com...
www.musicforamerica.org...

I went to all the reputable links above and found no quotes where GWB states that he will hold no one in his administration accountable for anything that happened in the Iraq war. In fact the only statements that come close to this in the articles are of the writer of the OPINION piece. I don't mean to harp on one subject so much but being able to separate fact from opinion, quote from commentary, is the foundation of any rational perception of truth. 95% of my posts have been directed toward helping you to make a better argument. I really hold out no hope of changing your ideology nor do I feel it necessary to do so, but I do hope that you will find ways of furthering your ideology that are more rational and coherent.

Well, it is your opinion that Bush is not a criminal. It is my opinion that he is. It was not my opinion that Clinton was a criminal, yet he was still impeached. That is how cut and dry it really is.

Actually to be a criminal you have to have committed a crime. BC committed a crime by lying under oath. No one questions that fact. Whether or not that crime rises to level where he should have been removed from office is a matter of opinion and debate but his crime is not. What crime has GWB been proven to have been committed? Criminality in Bush's case is purely speculative at this point hence it does not rise to an impeachable offense. Remember impeachment is only the decision to put a president on trial. It is not the trial itself. Clinton was impeached because he committed a crime. In his senate trial it was decided that he should not be removed from from office. Personally I think it was for the better since if he had been removed we would have been stuck with Al Gore, who is, in my opinion, one of the biggest political wienies ever.

There is no need for you to carry on and call names just because you dont agree with someone.

You now make aspersions toward me that are baseless in fact. I have called you no names. I made the connection between MM material taking inuendo and opinion and stating it as fact and your post doing the same thing. I make no references to you personally nor do I denigrate your opinions. Instead I denigrate their presentation as more than what they are.

You could attempt to portray your views as that. YOUR views. You could also attempt to accept that not every one sees things the same as you, and just because people see things differently, that doesnt automatically make them wrong.

I have never had a problem with opposing views and opinions. If you will read my posts carefully, you will see that I actually encourage you to support your opinions and develop them. I would like to see a coherent argument from you that uses facts and quotes to make your points. I love a good debate over issues and have even been swayed in my opinions by well thought out argumentation and presention. I hold to the precept found in my signature. "Let truth triumph over victory" I do not care if I win or lose in a discussion. Instead I only look for the truth and defend the lines of fact fiction and opinion wherever needed. You are more than welcome to your alternative ideology so long as you do not use it as evidence.




[edit on 22-2-2005 by Johannmon]

Originally posted by XX_SicSemperTyrannis_XX
It is because neo-cons fear true conservatives (and libertarians for that matter). They know that true conservatives and libertarians will expose the neo-cons for what they truly are: a sham.

I could not agree with you more. Libertarians are shunned by the right, but it's because we call them their worst curse word...

Liberal.

I was chatting with some hardcore conservative Republicans, and they proposed a 2 year conscription program.

I was like WHAT? That is 1) totally liberal and 2) totally liberal.

They got mad at that.

Originally posted by Johannmon


I went to all the reputable links above and found no quotes where GWB states that he will hold no one in his administration accountable for anything that happened in the Iraq war. In fact the only statements that come close to this in the articles are of the writer of the OPINION piece. I don't mean to harp on one subject so much but being able to separate fact from opinion, quote from commentary, is the foundation of any rational perception of truth. 95% of my posts have been directed toward helping you to make a better argument. I really hold out no hope of changing your ideology nor do I feel it necessary to do so, but I do hope that you will find ways of furthering your ideology that are more rational and coherent.

As far as th FACT that Bush has denied accountability for the war, which you seem not to want to accept, the rest of your post was just your opinion. I am not even going to get in to arguing with you about your opinion. Its yours and you can have it. As for Accountability, if you really dont want to find more info yourself just to make sure Im telling the truth, well, here is another link. From our very own Twitchy on ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, please, If you can answer any of my original questions, please do so. I dont want to argue about your opinions. That is NOT what this post is about and is off topic.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
As far as the FACT that Bush has denied accountability for the war, which you seem not to want to accept... ...As for Accountability, if you really dont want to find more info yourself just to make sure Im telling the truth, well, here is another link. From our very own Twitchy on ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I checked the new thread. THere is still no quote to substantiate this statement that you made.

He has stated the neither he NOR any member of his administration will be held accountable for mistakes in the wars he is fighting.

You can't find a quote because there isn't one. Your post said that Bush stated this yet the FACT is he did not state it. I have done my own searches on the subject all of which come up empty. You need to post a retraction or correction to what you really meant now that you realize that your original post is in error. Either that or post the quote you refer to.

Now, please, If you can answer any of my original questions, please do so. I dont want to argue about your opinions. That is NOT what this post is about and is off topic.

I see you only want your post to be about your opinions and are not interested in the thoughts or contributions of others who have a different perspective than you do. How very tollerant and accepting of you. I am sure that the founding fathers that you referenced would be quite proud of that kind of attitude.

Originally posted by Johannmon

I checked the new thread. THere is still no quote to substantiate this statement that you made.

He has stated the neither he NOR any member of his administration will be held accountable for mistakes in the wars he is fighting.

Im sorry if you cant find it there. You have not looked. The info is everywhere. Bush will not allow his administration to be held accountable. Period. You dont want to believe it. But it is true. Oh, you should look elswhere other than Fox News as they probably wont tell you about it.

I see you only want your post to be about your opinions and are not interested in the thoughts or contributions of others who have a different perspective than you do. How very tollerant and accepting of you. I am sure that the founding fathers that you referenced would be quite proud of that kind of attitude.

Completly incorrect. I am looking for answers to MY questions. Not your opinions. I started this thread to find out things I am trying to understand. This thread was NOT started so you could attempt to take the thread off track with your opinions. Now, if you cant answer the questions...............

BTW, you condecending remarks are uncalled for and quite child like. I would appreciate it if you could show a little maturity and respect in your next reply....if there is one.

[edit on 2/23/05 by Kidfinger]

J,


I have done the foot work for you.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

www.yuricareport.com...

This is not one of my original links, but even some of my original links contain this quote.

Now how about those questions.................

Originally posted by Kidfinger
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
www.yuricareport.com...

How can you possibly say with integrity that the above quote is proof of your statement?

He has stated the neither he NOR any member of his administration will be held accountable for mistakes in the wars he is fighting.

The two statements can only be reconciled in the mind of one who is clouded by partisanship and looking for justification of his or her beliefs rather than reality. If you start with the assumption that GWB accepts no responsiblity for his decisions then you might find scant corraboration in the quote you posted but without that vast assumption your statement and his have little to no relationship. The fact that you say "He Stated" implies a direct quote or a summation of a direct quote. You do not have that and should admit such and move on.

Now how about those questions.................

The problem with your questions is that they do not have an answer because they are predicated on false and unproven assumptions. I could as you how Bill Clinton could live with himself having intentionally degraded the office of president by allowing his sexual escapades to be reported publicly but it would not be an honest question because it assumes a motive that is unproven. In like fashion your questions are predicated on the assumption that neo-cons are interested in forcing people to believe as they do. This also assumes a motive that is unproven. These assumptions make discussion of your questions unfruitful since the real discussion should be about the assumptions themselves and not the questions that such assumptions lead to. If you are really looking for understanding then you will start with a frank evaluation of the assumptions that lead to your questions. Only then will you begin to find the answers that matter. Notice in this I do not suggest for you an assumption of my own, nor do I tell you where to start or what to think. Instead I invite you to explore your own belief by pointing out the inaccuracies in your current perspective. If I were patronizing or condescending I would now go on to tell you how you should think and try to tell you how foolish you have been to think what you do. Instead I only nudge at your understanding in the hopes of encouraging you to grow.

BTW, you condecending remarks are uncalled for and quite child like. I would appreciate it if you could show a little maturity and respect in your next reply....if there is one.

Now who is making unfounded accusations? Once again you have made an assumption that colors your understanding. You assume that I have an angst toward you that I do not hold to. I have no problem with you or the opinions you hold. I will debate with you and point out holes in your arguments and material because that is what forum in which you are posting is designed for. You might feel belittled because I make cogent arguments that seem to counter your information but this is only a result of the debate process not of personal attacks on my part. Since you have not responded to my request that you post the occasion where I belittled you I must assume that you agree that I have not. Now you claim offense to the tone of my writings yet said tone is determined more by the reader than the writer unless the verbage can be shown to be offensive. You have given no such examples of offensive verbage and I have no control over your assumption of attitude when you read my posts. I do regret that in all my best efforts to participate in this debate you see only tauntings. I have stated before and will state once again that I hold no ill will toward you nor toward your opinion but rather would like to see you ask questions that have answers that can be discussed because they are based on correct assumptions or better yet on facts. I wish you all the best and hope that instead of finding answers to your questions you find the right questions to answer.

[edit on 23-2-2005 by Johannmon]

Originally posted by Johannmon
I went to all the reputable links above and found no quotes where GWB states that he will hold no one in his administration accountable for anything that happened in the Iraq war.

You don't need quotes to see this. NO ONE has been held accountable for ANY of the mistakes made in planning and execution of the invasion/occupation. Unless of course, you consider the lowly soldiers being charged for crimes in the Abu Ghraib scandal. It should have been Rumsfeld's head on a platter for all of the above, to START with. Remember Les Aspin, anyone? (Clinton's Sec. Def. during the Somalia operation) Republicans, myself included, howled for his resignation after the dust settled on the MOG. Guess what? Clinton heard; Aspin was dumped. That's how it used to work in the real world, before the fantasyists took over. You know, consequences for actions.. In bizzaroBushWorld, they shift the blame like a hot potato. Anyone who can't see that, is simply not looking.

Actually to be a criminal you have to have committed a crime.

You got that right. Lucky Dubya! Must be nice to have a daddy at the top of the government's food chain, who gets his lackeys to SCRUB your record.

By the way, a State of the Union speech is considered the same as testifying UNDER OATH, legally. In his 2003 State of the Union address Bush made a claim that was patently false. That is an IMPEACHABLE offense.

Iraq Sought Uranium in Africa (2003)

The more widely known mistake was the president's claim in 2003 that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As Bush subsequently acknowledged, there was no evidence that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium from Africa.

In 2002 Joseph Wilson, the last ambassador to Iraq, had been dispatched by the CIA to Africa to investigate media reports that indicated Iraq had purchased uranium from Nigeria. He found that the reports were untrue. When his investigation became known an uproar ensued and Democrats called for an independent probe of Bush's claims. In July 2003 Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) demanded to know "why, as late as the president's State of the Union address in January 2003, our policymakers were still using information which the intelligence community knew was almost certainly false." The White House was thrown further on the defensive later in the summer after columnist Robert Novak outed Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. The media speculated that someone in the White House had leaked her identity to Novak in an attempt to silence Wilson. The Justice Department subsequently opened an investigation into the source of the leak. Recently, Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from oversight of the investigation, which he placed in the hands of the U.S. Attorney in Chicago.
hnn.us...

No one has the spine, or skeleton-less closet to press this issue. He should be held to account for this; afterall, in the wake of this, a CIA NOC was outted for revenge, ruining her cover and valued contacts (a federal crime), we illegally invaded a sovereign nation, we have crushed underfoot the Geneva Conventions and over 1500 of our men and women in uniform have DIED - for a LIE. THERE WERE NO WMD!

As a citizen, as a veteran, as a Christian and as a Republican this is my humble opinion: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et all should be impeached, fired, handed over the ICC, charged with war crimes, tried and then thrown into a dank cell somewhere for the rest of their unnatural lives - at the least.

Originally posted by Johannmon
[How can you possibly say with integrity that the above quote is proof of your statement?

Because it is true. What do you think he ment? That he would stand up and say he was wrong? No. He ment that there would be NO accountability. I am not going to argue symantics with you. Your opinion is yours. As was your entire reply. No facts.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
By the way, a State of the Union speech is considered the same as testifying UNDER OATH, legally. In his 2003 State of the Union address Bush made a claim that was patently false. That is an IMPEACHABLE offense.

I read your speech quote and you cannot prove from that quote that President GWB perjured himself.

Here is a definition of perjury: The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.

Under this definition you would need to prove that GWB himself had prior knowledge that the information he was diseminating was false. The fact that someone somewhere knew it was false is not sufficient to prove perjury. Additionally the fact that the information has been shown to be false is not sufficient to prove perjury. You must satisfy the deliberate portion of the definition in order to prove perjury. That has not been satisified hence your accusation of perjury is just that, an unsubstantiated accuasation.

Guess what? Clinton heard; Aspin was dumped.

I do not like the old world you seem to love so much where a mistake is made and someone gets axed. The error in Somalia was not that a few guys got killed it is that we pulled out like a whipped dog. Was Aspin responsible for this? Yet he took the fall. I appreciate the courage of the Bush administration to hold onto Rummy even though he has not been perfect at his job. If I fired everyone who screwed up I would no longer have a staff. In fact I would not have a job since I would have to fire myself. I don't just refer to little screw ups I mean big ones that cost money and reputation. You don't fire someone because something didn't work out. You fire them if they refuse to learn and grow from their mistakes or if they become rebellious. I am curious as to why you think it is good to axe someone whenever plans go awry. Does your sense of justice demand that someone take a hit? Or do you think it is gross negligence to have not anticipated all the eventualities of a situation? In the case of the Iraq war, do you really think that government planners could have executed the take over of a country with less than 2000 casualties? Maybe you are upset that everything didn't go perfectly or that we are having to continue to pour effort into stabilizing the region. Historically these are all things that should be expected of any military action that involves removing a sitting government.

we illegally invaded a sovereign nation, we have crushed underfoot the Geneva Conventions and over 1500 of our men and women in uniform have DIED - for a LIE. THERE WERE NO WMD!

First we legally invaded a nation whom we were already at war with. Since only a cease fire had been signed from Gulf War I and the terms of that agreement were broken, we had every legal right to resume hostilities. Maybe you consider the first war illegal too? We had a mandate both from congress and from the UN to use all means neccessary to cause Saddam to comply with UN resolutions concerning his verified WMD's. I say verified WMD's because he had an inventory of WMD's at the end of GWI that he had never accounted for. What he did with these weapons remains a mystery today and his refusal to disclose what he did with them provided part of rational for invasion. There is no question that there were WMD's. They were catalogued and visually inspected by UN inspectors. The only real question is , "Where are they and what did Saddam do with them." If Saddam had provided answers to these questions prior to GWII he would probably still be in power today. He refused and now he is no longer in power. Hence to say that there were no WMD's is misleading and factually inaccurate. The facts are : he had them. We saw them and inventoried them. He promised to destroy them and provide evidence of their destruction. He never provided evidence of their destruction. He was invaded for not fufilling the terms of both UN resolutions and the cease fire that ended GWI.

Johannmon,

You still refuse to adress the main question I have posed with this thread? It basically boils down to this, in case you have forgotten: Why is there a double standard for conservative Neocons when it comes to their leader? Why cant the Left question the right about matters the Left deems to be criminal acts? All of your partisan rhetoric still has not adressed this single key issue.

J,
Please dont reply with more well thought out speaches that dont pertain to these questions. Please DO reply with well thought out replies to the posed questions. I DO admire your intelligence and tenacity about your opinions. However, I started this post to get answers that no Neocon will answer. Every attempt I have made to have my questions answered is met with a runaround rhetoric that does nothing but hide from the original intent of my questions.

Please. If any on the extreme right can logically answer these pertinant questions I have posed, please do so. I would like to understand why Bush is so protected? I am NOT looking for an argumnet. I AM looking for an intelligent discussion that deals with the posed questions.

I'm not extreme right by any means (in fact my voter card has "dem" on it...whatever that means), but I will try to answer.


What is the question(s) btw?

I'm guessing that it's why can the right bash the left but the left can't bash the right? No?
If that is the question.....where did you get that from?
There are 100x more websites dedicated to bashing Bush and the right than there are of the right bashing the left. There are 100x more columist, articles, etc. bashing Bush and the right than there were/are of the right bashing the left.
In your first post your said:

It seems that the days of freedom of choice and expression are being wittled away by the NeoCons in an attempt to subvert an entire nation into believing exactly what they believe.

Are you kidding me? This president has seen some of the biggest protests in American history.
How does that happen if we're supposedly being silenced?

You have done a good job of rephrasing your questions in a manner that they can be answered directly. I will provide my answers to your questions without further explanation since I think my previous posts have provided sufficient justification for my answers, at least to this point.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Why is there a double standard for conservative Neocons when it comes to their leader?

Answer: There is no double standard. All political parties have a certain protectiveness when it comes to their leaders. The current administration is no more or less protective than any previous administration.

Why cant the Left question the right about matters the Left deems to be criminal acts?

Answer: They can and do question the right both with and without substantiation. The reason no charges have been brought to this point is that no crime has been shown, by reasonable verifiable evidence, to have been committed.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird



I'm guessing that it's why can the right bash the left but the left can't bash the right? No?

No, that was not the question. I am refering to the apparent double standarde that the NeoCons are employing agianst anyone who raises their voice agianst Bush. Go back and reread please.

Originally posted by Johannmon
You have done a good job of rephrasing your questions in a manner that they can be answered directly. I will provide my answers to your questions without further explanation since I think my previous posts have provided sufficient justification for my answers, at least to this point.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Why is there a double standard for conservative Neocons when it comes to their leader?

Answer: There is no double standard. All political parties have a certain protectiveness when it comes to their leaders. The current administration is no more or less protective than any previous administration.

Now we are getting some where. However, I will have to disagree with this. The Patriot Act has afforded the president with a protective buffer like no other president before Bush has enjoyed.

Why cant the Left question the right about matters the Left deems to be criminal acts?

Answer: They can and do question the right both with and without substantiation. The reason no charges have been brought to this point is that no crime has been shown, by reasonable verifiable evidence, to have been committed.

Agian, I will have to dissagree because Bush has pushed Legislation through that enables certain economic proceedures to be allowed that were illegal before he changed the legislation. That just makes him a legal criminal. An oxy moron for sure, but I cant think of a better way to describe him.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Now we are getting some where. However, I will have to disagree with this. The Patriot Act has afforded the president with a protective buffer like no other president before Bush has enjoyed.

WHile the patriot act has allowed for certain civil right to be abridged if a terrorist threat is suspected it pales in comparison to the type of outright censorship that previous presidents have enjoyed. For instance during WWII facists and communists in the USA would be tried and imprisonsed for anti US rhetoric. DO you honestly believe that had Michael Moore made his anti government movie in 1943 that he would be allowed to remain a free man, much less even distribute the film. He would have been tried for sedition. Today people are able to say all kinds of slanderous things about the government and the president without any repercussions whatsoever. In the 50 you had the communist trials where dissenters were labelled and persecuted under the approving eye of the executive and legislative branch of government.

The fact of the matter is that people have more freedom to revile the office and person of the president today than they ever have in history. The only thing that the patriot act did was to address threats made toward elected officials. In a time where we are conducting a war on terrorism I beleive this is a modest and appropriate safegaurd. When viewed in the light of historical wartime persecutions it is lukewarm at best. Remember the Japanese interment camps?

Even if the patriot act did create some sweeping, rights abridging, curtain of protection around the president, it still does not support your argument because it was not a neo-con bill. It had broad bipartisan support when it was drafted and passed. Hence the responsibility for its tenants lies as much with the democrats who favored it as it does with the Republicans. (on a personal note I do think that certain aspects of the patriot act need to be revised as do most legislators on both sides of the isle)

Agian, I will have to dissagree because Bush has pushed Legislation through that enables certain economic proceedures to be allowed that were illegal before he changed the legislation. That just makes him a legal criminal.

By your definition of legal criminal everyone who drinks alcohol is a legal criminal since they are only allowed to do so because a constitutional amendment that had banned alcohol was repealed the legalizing what was once illegal. The fact is that is not a criminal act instead most people call that governing. Times change, conditions change, and laws change with them. If it wasn't this way then Women would not be voting and cars would be banned from all public streets in favor of the more natural horse drawn transportation.