It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Something to ponder

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I'm just curious about something.

A lot of senators are portraying themselves as having been "lied to" about the pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

If they were so easily fooled by what is now being called "faulty intelligence" shouldn't they be the ones removed from office?

Just a thought




posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
You know what?, that makes PERFECT sense. I dont know why it was'nt thought of before



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
What? They should be removed because they were fooled, and the liars should keep their jobs? What sort of logic is that? Surely it is worse to lie than it is to be fooled by a lie?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Well, if they were fooled, then they obviously don't have the ability to do their jobs.

I think it's more likely that they are now trying to appeal to the anti-war crowd. Whats worse; a warmonger who sticks to his guns? or a political fence-jumper who changes his/her beliefs more often than they change underware?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I don't think the fact you're fooled by a lie necessarily means you're incompetent. If enough work is put into a lie, it can be made to seem like fact.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chud
I don't think the fact you're fooled by a lie necessarily means you're incompetent. If enough work is put into a lie, it can be made to seem like fact.


A good point I'll admit, but then again neither side has been able to completely prove thier case.

Overall though, isn't the removal of a genocidal tyrant enough cause for action? I certainly believe so.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Americans would not have been whipped into a war frenzy if the reason were "removal of a genocidal tyrant", especially when the genocide was two decades ago. No, to get "approval" for a war it had to be, for example, imminent danger from WMD or imply a link with 9/11. The "slam dunk" was getting the public to believe these stories.
Heck, at the same time Bush was pushing for war with Saddam who supposedly could have struck the East Coast, there was North Korea threatening the West Coast!
The one tyrant Americans need to worry about removing is their own!



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   
We have a tyrant? I don't recall tanks rolling into Washington D.C. and installing a dictator on a throne in the White House that has absolute authority. Last time I checked we still hold elections.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rightwingpatriot
We have a tyrant? I don't recall tanks rolling into Washington D.C. and installing a dictator on a throne in the White House that has absolute authority. Last time I checked we still hold elections.


You are describing a "coup". Not a tyranny.

Yes, elections are still held, however the current president was appointed
by the supreme court, he was not elected.

Hope this helps


[edit on 4/4/06 by Shadowbear]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Ah, yes, precisely, we hold elections to avoid a tyrant. And we must have three separate branches of government to avoid sounding as one. No, in this country tanks do not roll in, unless voters don't add their names to the voting rolls. We must not let anyone think s/he can have absolute authority.
Did you think I was referring to George Bush? I guess if you think the shoe fits, but I was speaking in general terms.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice eh uh.......shame on...uhhhh



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rightwingpatriot
If they were so easily fooled by what is now being called "faulty intelligence" shouldn't they be the ones removed from office?

What? Er, no. The ones that lied to them should be removed, if they were lied to, and then, if there's anyone left, we can talk about removing them.


Whats worse; a warmonger who sticks to his guns? or a political fence-jumper who changes his/her beliefs more often than they change underware?


Well which is it man, were they lied to or are they liars?

Did you start the thread just to be able to say that? Are you satisfied now?


[edit on 5-4-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
"A warmonger who sticks to his guns" is worse, imho.

People who change their beliefs don't bother me as much; the Constitution is supposed to keep "personal beliefs" from overruning it's bounds...

The issue is in trying to protect the integrity of that crucial document.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join