Alternatives to US global policy (continuation of "lying idiots" thread)

[Said1]

By the way, if it wasn't for their "barbaric culture," the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and modern democracies like ours would never have come around.
http://www.twf.org/Library/Renaissance.html

Please refrain from expressing such bigoted thoughts in the future. It shows your ignorance of history and societies other than your own.

It's funny you should mention that.

Have you noticed who has made the most significant contributions and advancments since the middle ages, and who has not?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

rgtwngavngr feels that the PNAC is justified in knocking down other countries in order to build ourselves up, that US dominance is a worthy enough goal that immoral behavior is justified to reach it. The ends justify the means for him. Yet he himself could just as easily have been born in Iran instead of the United States. He could have been raised a muslim, and been on the reciving end of our military rather than reaping its benefits right now. It is all a matter of chance that he was so blessed as to be born in this great nation. I believe that our role as a part of this great experiment is to act as the consciense, to hold our elected leaders to the promises they make, to not let them deceive and scheme away the American dream behind closed doors. rtwngavngr may support the actions of the PNAC, yet I am willing to bet that the majority of Americans would be disgusted were they to know the true goals and influence of this secretive group on our foreign policy.

Don't presume to summarize me, dim one. I feel that a Strong America is good for America, of course, AND THE WORLD. We can all acknowledge that america has played a unique role in world history. We have historically been a force which spreads freedom over tyranny, democracy over tyranny. We promote certain values abroad, and the world has indisputably benefitted from those projections of our national moral character.

the people just overwhelmingly endorsed pnac values. We just had an election. Did you notice the outcome?

 

[oxbow3]

Don't presume to summarize me, dim one.

my apologies

I feel that a Strong America is good for America, of course, AND THE WORLD. We can all acknowledge that america has played a unique role in world history. We have historically been a force which spreads freedom over tyranny, democracy over tyranny. We promote certain values abroad, and the world has indisputably benefitted from those projections of our national moral character.

The multiple examples I've listed in the last week not withstanding of course. The only democracy we have been endorsing lately is in Iraq. We simply support whoever can give us a better deal far too many times. Has it ever occurred to you that the rest of the world is slowly turning against us for a reason? Its not just envy of the big dog, despite what Fox News may say.

the people just overwhelmingly endorsed pnac values. We just had an election. Dd you notice the outcome?

The people endorsed permanent military bases around the world? What about domination of other nations through whatever means necessary? Using the media as a tool for government propaganda campaigns?

The people endorsed a sugar coated version of PNAC values. They would have run away as fast as possible had they known the real face. Of course, this is the most secretive White House in modern history, so that's rather hard. Perhaps they have something to hide, ey?

PNAC values are shared by many Americans. What isn't is the belief that the use of militiary force to maintian US hegemony is justified without real threats to national security.

 

[freeandfun1]

J07950The question I ask myself is: do our actions move the world closer to global unity or farther away from it?

Further I hope.

 

[oxbow3]

It's funny you should mention that.

Have you noticed who has made the most significant contributions and advancments since the middle ages, and who has not?

the middle east did for some centuries, and now the west has for a few. You could have been born 500 years ago in europe and never bathed or seen a book your whole life. The muslim cultures' love of learning saved the knowledge of the ancients from destruction, allowing it to be transplanted in Europe as a result of the crusades. The Muslim world did fall into decline afterwards, most likely because the Europe of the Dark Ages had nothing worth transplanting in return. Perhaps this renewed conflict between the two civilizations will return the favor, though?

Despite the US's exalted position now, it cannot remain the sole superpower indefinitely. Already China is taking the place in the world economy that we once had, for example . You notice how everything seems to be "made in China" these days? It's only a matter of time until they start being proud of that disitinction, rather than hiding it on the bottom of their goods.

The US would do well not to isolate itself from the rest of the world by its actions, both politically and militarily. This would be the true beginning of the end in the new global age that we are entering.

 

[oxbow3]

Further I hope.

Is this a sarcastic comment? If not, could you please explain your reasoning?

 

[Said1]

he middle east did for some centuries, and now the west has for a few. You could have been born 500 years ago in europe and never bathed or seen a book your whole life. The muslim cultures' love of learning saved the knowledge of the ancients from destruction, allowing it to be transplanted in Europe as a result of the crusades. Perhaps this renewed conflict between the two civilizations will return the favor?

Pls spare all of us the attitude that assumes we know nothing when responding to posts, it's not a endearing quality.
And you seem to be missing the fact that western culture has been able to take the few (albeit important) advances crusaders returned to Euorpe with, and develop them further, whereas the ME has not. Napoleon's scientists and archeologists took more interest in learning about the ME than the entire Ottoman empire.

 

[freeandfun1]

Is this a sarcastic comment? If not, could you please explain your reasoning?

I have no desire for a "unified" world if you mean unified under one system.

 

[oxbow3]

Im sorry if I come across that way, Said1. I was aware that you knew what I was posting, because of your previous comments on the subject. I was just retelling it for those who may not. Its a bad habit I have.

The Middle East did fall into decline after the crusades. Perhaps it was because they Europe of the Middle Ages had nothing worth transplanting in return. Perhaps the religious orthodoxy of the muslim tradition stifled the sciences after it became ossified.

Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" proved quite succinctly that technological advancement of cultures has nothing to do with intelligence or inherent vitality but is a result of various environmental factors. Perhaps the resources of the region were simply used up, and the large civilizations which give society the freedom to pursue the arts and sciences could not continue growing in the region.

Either way, do they deserve any less respect because they are not as advanced at present? The strife that the region is going through is very similiar to the wars and extremism that Europe saw around the time of its Renaisance. I believe that the Muslim world is poised fopr a Renaissance of its own, as technology creates more wealth and with it, greater education in the area. Democracy is a worthy goal for the region, but it cannot be imposed from the outside. The British already tried that in Iraq in the 1920's, and it failed miserably. Why should we think that it will work now?

The people must be left to work out their own problems, especially if they are no threat to the international community, as was the case with Iraq. We don't know what is best for them. It only makes us seem arrogant to act like we do. The world can help them through this transformation perhaps, but not a few nations going it alone.

 

[oxbow3]

I have no desire for a "unified" world if you mean unified under one system.

No, I mean unified in purpose, working for the greater good of all, rather than each nation trying to be the dominant power. It is the vision which Christ spoke of, and it has been on the tongues of all great teachers. The lasting peace which will come when the human race becomes one family again. Or rather, when they realize that they already are.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

my apologies




The only democracy we have been endorsing lately is in Iraq. We simply support whoever can give us a better deal far too many times.

We haven't been perfect. Now we're doing it the right way. We're undoing the barriers to modernity that keep societies poor, namely, tyrannical oppression. We can no longer afford to support tyrannical regimes. The world can't tolerate rogue nuclear regimes. Though your limited doctrinnaire, inflexible world view precludes the possibility of America as a Moral Superpower, that is precisely what we are.

Has it ever occurred to you that the rest of the world is slowly turning against us for a reason? Its not just envy of the big dog, despite what Fox News may say.

There were many nations in the coalition of the willing.

PNAC values are shared by many Americans. What isn't is the belief that the use of militiary force to maintian US hegemony is justified without real threats to national security.

Well, the point is that the threats ARE real.

Allowing rogue nations to transform generations of their youth into anti western hatred machines cannot continue.

 

[Said1]

Im sorry if I come across that way, Said1. I was aware that you knew what I was posting, because of your previous comments on the subject. I was just retelling it for those who may not. Its a bad habit I have.

s'aight

The Middle East did fall into decline after the crusades. Perhaps it was because they Europe of the Middle Ages had nothing worth transplanting in return. Perhaps the religious orthodoxy of the muslim tradition stifled the sciences after it became ossified.

If I had to guess, I would say religion and perceived superiority.

Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" proved quite succinctly that technological advancement of cultures has nothing to do with intelligence or inherent vitality but is a result of various environmental factors. Perhaps the resources of the region were simply used up, and the large civilizations which give society the freedom to pursue the arts and sciences could not continue growing in the region.

This doesn't excuse failures to adapt and implement successful reforms and technological advances (for whatever reason) in order to sustain growing populations. I don't assume the ME as a culture is not capable of advancing, due to lack of intelligence or vitality, although obvious failures could be considered "not smart".

Either way, do they deserve any less respect because they are not as advanced at present? The strife that the region is going through is very similiar to the wars and extremism that Europe saw around the time of its Renaisance. I believe that the Muslim world is poised fopr a Renaissance of its own, as technology creates more wealth and with it, greater education in the area. Democracy is a worthy goal for the region, but it cannot be imposed from the outside. The British already tried that in Iraq in the 1920's, and it failed miserably. Why should we think that it will work now?

The people must be left to work out their own problems, especially if they are no threat to the international community, as was the case with Iraq. We don't know what is best for them. It only makes us eem arrogant to act like we do.

Slow down. You're seem to be reading way to much into what I've posted, and appear to have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything that sounds remotely familiar to what you've post above. For someone who claims they aren't arrogant, you're not very convincing.

 

[oxbow3]

Slow down. You're seem to be reading way to much into what I've posted, and appear to have me confused with someone else. I haven't said anything that sounds remotely familiar to what you've post above. For someone who claims they aren't arrogant, you're not very convincing.

No, I am speaking in opposition of our present foreign policy. If I made a false assumption that you are in support of it, please forgive me.

 

[oxbow3]

We haven't been perfect. Now we're doing it the right way. We're undoing the barriers to modernity that keep societies poor, namely, tyrannical oppression. We can no longer afford to support tyrannical regimes. The world can't tolerate rogue nuclear regimes. Though your limited doctrinnaire, inflexible world view precludes the possibility of America as a Moral Superpower, that is precisely what we are.

We are in agreement. I just do not like being lied to. Iran was named as the #1 sponsor of terror for several years running by our state dept. North Korea quietly expanded its nuclear capabilities while we were busy with Iraq. I would have been fully in support of increased international pressure on either of these problems. Instead though, we took on Saddam, the most harmless member of Bush's "axis of evil", thus isolating ourselves from the rest of the international community in the process.

We are not strong enough to change the world by ourselves. We can't expect international help if we just snub them and go to war illegally though.

There were many nations in the coalition of the willing.

But who is providing anything more than moral support besides Britian? Can you name any other significant donor to the war effort? Most of the coalition is weak mini-states who are lending their name to the coalition in exchange for economic or political benefits.

The U.S. contributed more than seven-eighths of the participating soldiers [140,000]; assistance also came from the United Kingdom [8,000 plus change] and several other allies. Although their status as Coalition Provisional Authority (i.e. "Occupying Powers" under a UN resolution) changed when the new government asserted its sovereignty on June 28 (see Iraqi sovereignty), the mission of the multinational force has decreased only by small numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

Really Avenger, a few hundred soldiers from El Salvadoer or Latvia is a pittance compared to what we really need there, or what the US is shouldering in human cost. It seems pretty clear in my view that the coalition is more for show than real effectiveness.

Well, the point is that the threats ARE real.

agreed

Allowing rogue nations to transform generations of their youth into anti western hatred machines cannot continue.

Have you read the new Washington Post article entitled "Iraq a new terror breeding ground: War created a haven, CIA advisers report?"

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.


President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

Unguarded borders
But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.

The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, and advises the CIA director. "The NIC's goal," one NIC publication states, "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6823913/

Iraq is becoming what Afghanisitan was in the 1980's: the new womb of international terrorism. Though unintended, the invasion is making terrorists faster than it can kill them right now. Not just in Iraq either, if the CIA think-tank is to be believed.

We all know that intent and outcome rarely coincide. In this case, The admin. is hurting us more than helping by the invasion. Rather than starting a domino effect whereby other countries in the region turn towards democracy, the invasion is inspiring a new generation of youth to join the war against "the occupiers." The Bush doctrine is essentially flawed in that it ignores the culture and social forces that are at play in the region.

I just don't see how an election is going to change any of that. The civil society has to be there first for democracy to work. I fear a replay of what happenned 80 years ago when the British gave democracy to the Iraqis: Civil war and chaos between the different ethnic groups will ensue. The disempowered sunni minority will fight for political power the only way a minority can, through asymmetrical warfare (i.e., terrorism and guerilla attacks). That is what's been happening so far, and I see it only getting worse after the elections make it evident that the Sunni's will have little power in the finalized government.

Saddam's iron fist somehow kept the Shiite majority in check all those years. I fear that they will only be terrorised for so long until they turn on the Sunni population in this precipitous new environment, though.

If all this seems self evident, I do apologize. Maybe I should just go into teaching. At least there I'll get paid to lecture people

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We are in agreement. I just do not like being lied to. Iran was named as the #1 sponsor of terror for several years running by our state dept. North Korea quietly expanded its nuclear capabilities while we were busy with Iraq. I would have been fully in support of increased international pressure on either of these problems. Instead though, we took on Saddam, the most harmless member of Bush's "axis of evil", thus isolating ourselves from the rest of the international community in the process.

We are not strong enough to change the world by ourselves. We can't expect international help if we just snub them and go to war illegally though.

If we're in such agreement, why do you spend your efforts badmouthing the U.S. instead of getting others on our side?


The rest of the world's objection to the war was based on selfish and not principled reasons. Do you fail to do the right thing just because others are also failing to do the right thing?

But who is providing anything more than moral support besides Britian? Can you name any other significant donor to the war effort? Most of the coalition is weak mini-states who are lending their name to the coalition in exchange for economic or political benefits.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-led_coalition_against_Iraq

Really Avenger, a few hundred soldiers from El Salvadoer or Latvia is a pittance compared to what we really need there, or what the US is shouldering in human cost. It seems pretty clear in my view that the coalition is more for show than real effectiveness.

And you think Bush has a P.R. problem? You denigrate the efforts of true allies. You're disgusting.

agreed




Have you read the new Washington Post article entitled "Iraq a new terror breeding ground: War created a haven, CIA advisers report?"


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6823913/

Iraq is becoming what Afghanisitan was in the 1980's: the new womb of international terrorism. Though unintended, the invasion is making terrorists faster than it can kill them right now. Not just in Iraq either, if the CIA think-tank is to be believed.

We all know that intent and outcome rarely coincide. In this case, The admin. is hurting us more than helping by the invasion. Rather than starting a domino effect whereby other countries in the region turn towards democracy, the invasion is inspiring a new generation of youth to join the war against "the occupiers." The Bush doctrine is essentially flawed in that it ignores the culture and social forces that are at play in the region.

I just don't see how an election is going to change any of that. The civil society has to be there first for democracy to work. I fear a replay of what happenned 80 years ago when the British gave democracy to the Iraqis: Civil war and chaos between the different ethnic groups will ensue. The disempowered sunni minority will fight for political power the only way a minority can, through asymmetrical warfare (i.e., terrorism and guerilla attacks). That is what's been happening so far, and I see it only getting worse after the elections make it evident that the Sunni's will have little power in the finalized government.

Saddam's iron fist somehow kept the Shiite majority in check all those years. I fear that they will only be terrorised for so long until they turn on the Sunni population in this precipitous new environment, though.

If all this seems self evident, I do apologize. Maybe I should just go into teaching. At least there I'll get paid to lecture people

So if Iraq's the new breeding ground of terror, I guess there must be some connections between Iraq and global terrorism. They have already been training a generation of their youth to be human bombs for allah. This cycle of death must stop. So there's a spike in recruiting, at least they grasp the reality of the situation, unlike you and your braindead brethren.

 

[dilloduck]

Why was it a good thing, though? If something is the right thing to do, then why do you have to resort to lies and deception to convince other people. Why do you have to sink to fear mongering? You must have a very pessimistic view of humanity if you truly think that the only wayto get people to do the right thing is to manipulate them, DD.

One more thing: Do you approve of your own self being deceived too? You don't feel even a little bit taken advantage of? This is another thing I have some trouble understanding.

In the minds of millions of Americans it was the right thing to do and millions STILL think that way in spite of many setbacks and mistakes. Manipulation and fear mongering unfortunately are staples of our political system. Have you seen a president elected that didn't use these tactics? I happen to have a very optimistic view of humanity IF they are presented with all the facts in an unbiased fashion. Unfortunately the MSM has been dedicated to spreading the lies of the left for decades (manipulating) as has recently been verified by the CBS debacle. This fact alone has led to an ignorant electorate who blindly listens to the misinformation (lies) of the press. How do YOU feel about being lied to by the people responsible for passing the truth to people?

I don't feel one bit deceived by this administration because I understand they did what was necessary to finally engage an enemy that had been merely appeased up to 9/11 and I was very concerned that we were ignoring a force of evil that was bent on killing Americans and destroying our way of life WITH NO LEGIMATE OR LEGAL REASON to do so. The MSM was willing to let this continue for no reason other than to promote the liberal cause in America. Their monoply on lying to Americans was met head on and guess who lost?

 

[Said1]

No, I am speaking in opposition of our present foreign policy. If I made a false assumption that you are in support of it, please forgive me.

Assume nothing.

 

[Avatar4321]

Iraq is becoming what Afghanisitan was in the 1980's: the new womb of international terrorism. Though unintended, the invasion is making terrorists faster than it can kill them right now. Not just in Iraq either, if the CIA think-tank is to be believed.

Well then we have to appreciate the President's vision of putting us in a place where we will be fighting the war on terror in the terrorist backyard rather than are own shouldnt we? That way we can get rid of them all by having them gather in one place.

Trust me when Iraq has its government in place and becomes one of the most prosperous nations in that region of the world the nations surrounding it will take notice. Iran for instance is unstable as possible right now. Now that its trapped between Aghanistan and Iraq which are about to become impressive Representative governments with more freedom than those regions ever imagined. How difficult do you think it will be to take care of the rogue government there?

You critisize us for going after Iraq first. I think it was a rather good idea. yeah it was probably not as strong as the others but by taking care of it now we prevented it from ever becoming as strong as the others. We put pressure on the others to show that we know what we are doing. Can you imagine the left complaining about the loss of soldiers if we took on the others? I think it was far wiser to tackle the easier one first get us used to the concept of war again since its been so long so when the time comes and we may end up losing more people we wont turn and run from the responsibility we have to do. Its wiser for us to learn to walk before we have to run. And by learning what we didnt anticipate in this first war we can better anticipate what will be needed in later wars with terrorists. We can deal with our weaknesses now when it doesnt matter as much compared to the future when there could be major casualties on the line for those mistakes we could have ironed out now.

 

[oxbow3]

If we're in such agreement, why do you spend your efforts badmouthing the U.S. instead of getting others on our side?

I was trying to explain why our enemies have such support in the muslim world. The US is not an evil empire, but it's foreign policy in the middle east has been contradictory and self-serving in many cases. We can argue the reasons for this but it remains a fact that our image there sucks. You will remember that we made a major PR effort to change our image in the muslim world after 9/11, but it was roundly deemed a disaster by all. IMO our image problem is because of our past and present politices, and all the positive PR in the world won't change that without some real shifts in policy to match.

You are thinking with your emotions, Avenger. My point is not to badmouth anybody, but to show you how the US is perceived by others and why. It may not be a rational perspective, it may unevenly show the bad side of us, but there it is. It's a view that is only growing in the region, so we must deal with in a constructive matter by taking a serious look at our foreign policy and the rationale behind it.

The rest of the world's objection to the war was based on selfish and not principled reasons. Do you fail to do the right thing just because others are also failing to do the right thing?

I can't see this principle, Im sorry. If there were no WMD's and no threat to the international community from Iraq, then why should they have wanted to invade it? There are evil regimes too numerous to list in central america, africa, north korea and the middle east. Why would they want to invade this particularly weakened one, especially when the the IAEA reported the sanctions were working?

And you think Bush has a P.R. problem? You denigrate the efforts of true allies. You're disgusting.[/QUOTE]

Read my comments again. 7/8 equals roughly 90% of the troops. I said that in comparison, the support offered by our allies is miniscule. Does 1/8 from the rest of the world really seem fair, and does it make that much of a difference? To me, it seems that having "a coalition" of this kind serves more of a psychological benefit a practical one. Is it 'denigrating' to say that the emperor has no clothes?

So if Iraq's the new breeding ground of terror, I guess there must be some connections between Iraq and global terrorism. They have already been training a generation of their youth to be human bombs for allah. This cycle of death must stop. So there's a spike in recruiting, at least they grasp the reality of the situation, unlike you and your braindead brethren.

When was anyone training suicide bombers in Iraq before we came? Did you ever hear of terrorism in that area before us? Many terrorists flocked to Iraq after "the enemy" invaded from unguarded borders. The younger generation was created as a result of the invasion, both in Iraq and from other places. Please take a closer look at the article, as it does not support anything you just said. Your emotions are clouding your reason.

It is admirable to be passionate about one's views, but those views have to be grounded in reality, supported by facts and evidence. There is a world of difference between idealists and ideologues.

 

[oxbow3]

In the minds of millions of Americans it was the right thing to do and millions STILL think that way in spite of many setbacks and mistakes.

A majority of Americans also still think that there was a relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Manipulation and fear mongering unfortunately are staples of our political system.

Why though? Is it because we allow them to get away with it? We held Clinton accountable for lying to Congress about Monica Lewinsky. We almost impeached him for it, and the only lives that debacle ruined was his own family's.

Why should this president not be held accountable when he has permanently destroyed tens of thousands of families? There are thousands of Iraqi children who are missing parents or limbs because of a lie. Their lives can never be normal again.

I am not a liberal. I believe that everyone should be treated equally. Do you?

Unfortunately the MSM has been dedicated to spreading the lies of the left for decades (manipulating) as has recently been verified by the CBS debacle. This fact alone has led to an ignorant electorate who blindly listens to the misinformation (lies) of the press. How do YOU feel about being lied to by the people responsible for passing the truth to people?

I already know though that 2-3 news agencies control almost all the news that gets on the air. I can be lied to, but I can also check up on the claims, and I can hold those who deceive accountable. You're right; I do wish other people would be more skeptical of what they see on TV.

Concerning CBS: the independent review, headed by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh (an appointee of Bush's father) and former Associated Press president Louis Boccardi, found no evidence that political bias was a factor in the network's journalism. Instead, The report documented a series of misjudgments on the part of several CBS staffers, most notably producer Mary Mapes. It was their judgement that CBS was trying so hard to beat the other news agencies to the story that it didn't check the authenticity of the document in question.

The only evidence I've seen put forward for political bias was one email saying that this story could effect the outcome of the election, but that they probably couldn't get a book deal for the witness until after the election. (see p. 62 of the review). I'm not sure if this is bias or just a comment on the state of things by Mapes. If the National Guard story was true, it certainly could have affected the outcome. Many have argued that Kerry never recovered from the swiftboat ads, yet those were false as well. Perhaps Mapes was just stating political reality, or perhaps she wanted Kerry to win; the evidence doesn't point either way conclusively.

Even if the independent panel was wrong, 4 executives were fired and Dan Rather's reputation was ruined for life. I am happy knowing that, whether it was an error or conscious deception, the truth came out.

The public still believes that we are in Iraq to protect our freedom from terror. The President was re-elected as a result. Unlike CBS, his admin. was not held accountable, but rewarded for lying. The thing is, over 20,000 innocents didn't die when CBS lied. And we can also prove conclusively that the admin. did lie, which we can't with CBS. Comparing these two cases is not helpful.

I don't feel one bit deceived by this administration because I understand they did what was necessary to finally engage an enemy that had been merely appeased up to 9/11 and I was very concerned that we were ignoring a force of evil that was bent on killing Americans and destroying our way of life WITH NO LEGIMATE OR LEGAL REASON to do so. The MSM was willing to let this continue for no reason other than to promote the liberal cause in America. Their monoply on lying to Americans was met head on and guess who lost?

I am trying to understand this argument, so please bear with me:

You admit that they lied, but you don't feel deceived, because it was a necessay lie? Your reasoning is that Hussein was evil enough that it didn't matter whether he had WMD's or was involved in intl. terrorism or not, we were justified in saying these things anyway so we coul invade? If Hussein was so bent on killing Americans though, why didn't he engage in international terrorism? Why did he only harbor his neighbor's enemies? This is the part where I always trip up.

If I am representing your viewpoint correctly, then I think it might be another form of ad hominem:

4) Two-wrongs-don’t-make-a-right: diverting attention from the issue by introducing a new point; e.g by responding to an accusation with a counteraccusation that makes no attempt to refute the first accusation
example: Chinese officials suggesting that the US has no place attacking their human rights record because Americans are not blameless either

It seems to me that if he was so evil, we wouldn't need to lie in order to demonize him. I would think his actions would speak for themselves without us having to make up atrocities to justify our actions.