This man is a nuts

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I partially agree with you. It is true that the government is not always doing what its constituents want it to do.

On the other hand, I think you are way off the mark with your other comments. I don't think there is any specific strategy that 70% of Americans would agree on in Iraq. However, there have been several startegies presented by people in government. I do think that 70% of the population would support at least one of the approaches presented. That is my point. My point is that the bipartisan, mainstream ideas in Congress usually cover the viewpoints of mainstream America.

With regard to the wiretaps, if you explain to people exactly what is being done, I think the vast majority of Americans are in favor of the wiretaps. Our government is only wiretapping the phones of people that have been communicating with terrorists. Who would possibly be against us tapping the phones of people who have been communciating with terrorists?

With regard to what is going on at Gitmo, I would have to think that the vast majority of Americans are ok with what's going on. We may not like it, but if it may save lives then I think people are willing to give our government some leeway. Have you seen any indication that a large percenatge of Americans are against the interrogation techniques used? By the way, you also need to consider that there are plenty of people out there who will simply be against a policy for partisan reasons. For example, let's say that there is 35% of the population who claim that they are against our interrogation techniques. you have to remeber that many of these same people will have no problem with those exact techniques if a Democrat was President. There is major hypocrisy in both parties. There are plenty of Americans in both parties that will complain about a policy if the policy is initiated by the other party. For example, there were plenty of Americans that were complaing when Clinton was bombing Kosovo. Many of those same people that were complaining would not have been complaining if it was Bush who was bombing Kosovo.

Rupert,
Where do I start?
Ok...Let's begin with the "will of the majority". Current polls indicate about 75% of the American people wish for a withdrawl or redeployment of American forces in Iraq. They voted for a "change of course" last month.
So, is the "majority" being heard? Or, instead...after four years of a failed policy are there calls for increasing American military presence in Iraq?
Feel free to tell me. I assure you that I'll listen, even though those in power don't. I don't control this situation, nor do the majority of citizens that have voiced their disapproval.
Interesting that you believe in the "will of the majority" but deny the protections offerred by the United States Constitution that assure the rights of the "minorities". Supreme Court decisions have again and again "constructively" decided to uphold those same rights under the "rule of law", whether they concern a religious group that has "unpopular beliefs",
people of a minority ethnic background seeking education and voting opportunities, or gender equality. Even those that wish to deface or burn the American flag (though I don't agree with doing this action), have been given the freedom to do so as an act of "free speech". Their actions, though hardly a "majority view" are constitutionally protected.
Regarding of the "right to privacy" that is guaranteed by the 4th amendment, and the FISA law, and our current administration's disregard of same, it is hoped that this matter will be addressed in the courts. Those that have violated their oath to "preserve and defend" the constitution should be held accountable. As should those that have done away with habeus corpus.
In summation, please realize that the constitution has provisions that, although enjoyed by all, do in fact protect those in the "minority" as well.
Matters of "invasion of privacy", "suspension of habeus corpus", or any other disregard of those rights, will be dealt with via the judicial system, (and btw...that's not the majority).

[Rupert Pupkin]

I agree that most people in this country think we need to make some changes in Iraq. They don't think we should withdraw. They just think we need to make some changes. Most people in government think the same thing. Even President Bush thinks we need to make some changes. That's why he has hired a new Sec of Defense.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree that most people in this country think we need to make some changes in Iraq. They don't think we should withdraw. They just think we need to make some changes. Most people in government think the same thing. Even President Bush thinks we need to make some changes. That's why he has hired a new Sec of Defense.

So...hmm...what has he been "deciding" for the past four years?
Or, hmm...is this an admission that there really wasn't a "plan" to begin with?
There certainly were plenty of lies.
Where are his clothes?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

So...hmm...what has he been "deciding" for the past four years?
Or, hmm...is this an admission that there really wasn't a "plan" to begin with?
There certainly were plenty of lies.
Where are his clothes?

They had a plan but the insurgents have severely disrupted that plan. It is obvious that the Administration totally underestimated the strength of the insurgency.

I don't think there were any lies. A lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." The fact that they never found any WMDs does not mean they lied.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They had a plan but the insurgents have severely disrupted that plan. The Administration underestimated the strength of the insurgency.

I don't think there were any lies. A lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." The fact that they never found any WMDs does not mean they lied.

Plan??? Huhh???
Are you making yet another excuse?
False statement? Does that include trying to tie Saddam with 9-11?
They didn't lie???
It figures.

[Downthestretch55]

Powell seems to have a better grasp, and he wasn't a member of the ISG.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...jU0&refer=home

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Plan??? Huhh???
Are you making yet another excuse?
False statement? Does that include trying to tie Saddam with 9-11?
They didn't lie???
It figures.

I think Bush did think that Saddam may have been involved with 9/11. If you remember, that guy Richard Clarke said that Bush kept asking him to see if he could find evidence of Saddam's involvement with 9/11. Why would Bush have kept asking him, if Bush was not convinced that there was a connection? If you remember, there were reports that linked Muhammad Atta to some Iraqi intelligence officers. At one time, they were pretty confident that those reports were accurate. Later on, they realized that they could not confirm the accuracies of those reports.

So once again, something is only a lie if the person saying it knows that the information is false.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think Bush did think that Saddam may have been involved with 9/11. If you remember, that guy Richard Clarke said that Bush kept asking him to see if he could find evidence of Saddam's involvement with 9/11. Why would Bush have kept asking him, if Bush was not convinced that there was a connection? If you remember, there were reports that linked Muhammad Atta to some Iraqi intelligence officers. At one time, they were pretty confident that those reports were accurate. Later on, they realized that they could not confirm the accuracies of those reports.

So once again, something is only a lie if the person saying it knows that the information is false.

Rupert,
Seems to me that you DO really want to know.
Heck, most decent Americans would like to know more about the war they were sold...and bought.
Truth in advertising? Nahh...doesn't play too well in DC.
Too bad so many kids had to die for it. Both theirs and ours.
Just my take...cause "it figures"...Bush was looking for an excuse (rationale) for the invasion. Lots of crude (2nd largest in the world) was up for grabs.
Cheney was the puppeteer (Halliburton, pipelines, military supply, no-bid contracts).
The "cheerleader" did his best. He even landed on the flight deck of the A. Lincoln to tell us all 1368 days ago that the "mission" had been "accomplished".
Too bad that it hasn't been...but "it figures".