Have a nice holiday? I ate way too much! My wife hates the fact that I stay slender, regardless of how much I eat. It's the damnedest thing. Keep D&D Civil.
I would like to clarify something. I personally appreciate many of the things President Bush has said. I really try to pray for him and I respect his own Christian faith. I voted for him and would do it again, even considering what I hold as an opinion now. But I am very sad by what appears to me to be a conflict of faith, conscience and integrity with respect to many actions taken by the administration. I don't need to come across as a Bush-hater, just have an opinion that things aren't what they appear to be and I don't value speeches and rhetoric the way I do action and results. The Replublican and Democratic parties don't thrill me as much as they used to. As a conservative Republican by vote, I don't find much solace in the actions of my political party- I find absent a loyal commitment to the Constitution and faith that I had expected.
what does this poll have to do with this thread?? will the results of this poll change the fact that bush lied or not??
A big AMEN to that. The political polarization that currently grips this country would disappear if everyone in America would remember that Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Kennedy, DeLay, Dean and every other politician of their ilk, regardless of party, have a lot more in common with each other than they do with the American citizenry.
Well while I throw stones at the politicians let me acknowledge that as a pastor I face the same temptation and corruption- to compromise ethics and morals to gain the approval of people. Maybe I should keep a mirror close by when discussing politics.
Speaking of lying... Wikipedia's definition of 'swiftboating' is now available... Swiftboating From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Swiftboating is American political jargon for the sensationalized portrayal of John Kerry's decorated military experience in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth organization's ads against Democratic presidential candidate Senator John F. Kerry in the 2004 presidential election campaign alleged that Senator Kerry was being untruthful in his representation of his military record. All available military records support Senator Kerry's accounts of his own service. After the ads were broadcast on national media outlets, the allegations against Sen. Kerry gained traction on right-wing talk radio, the Drudge Report and the Fox News Channel. Kerry was faulted by many commentators for not responding to the story sooner than he did, but it is a matter of debate whether this would have benefitted his campaign or not. Had he said something sooner, other media outlets might have picked up on the charges, giving them even wider play. On the other hand, by staying silent, he allowed his Vietnam-era critics to appear unchallenged. Either way, the appearance of the Swift Boat Veterans and their book, Unfit for Command was a political windfall for President George W. Bush. Hitting the Drudge Report just after the Democratic Convention, a convention which gave great prominance to Sen. Kerry's military service, the Veterans and their book played a role in neutralizing whatever political momentum Sen. Kerry might have received otherwise. The meaning of the term "Swiftboating" has expanded to refer to exaggeration and embellishment to the point of lying in a public relations assault on a political opponent. More specifically, Swiftboating frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the exaggerations. By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against the opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to give the story far more play than it would otherwise receive. Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among liberal writers, while its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating
Rhester; You're free to vote who you want to vote for but from what I've heard of you hear talk about the your beliefs as a Christian and your political beliefs with all due respect I believe you've been taken in by GW Bush's rhetoric. The actions of this Admin. aren't even close to being the actions of a true conservative or in your case, libertarian Admin.. They've expanded the size and scope of the federal government more than any Admin. since FDR. They've operated with as more secrecy and lack of candor than possibly any Admin.. From what I've heard of your views as a Christian I would say GW Bush hasn't acted with the same sense of humility or self reflection that you've shown and that you've stated is important as Christians. While GW Bush has often claimed to be a servant of God it often seems like he uses God to justify his own actions. I can't judge whether he is a true believer or not but will give him the benefit of the doubt but if you look at his rhetoric and political strategy it does strike me that rather than furthering God's message he uses that message to further his own political career. I'm not a Christian and its not for me to judge what Christians believe or expect of politicians but IMO I don't see GW Bush representing the best of Christianity and am suspicious of his use of Christian rhetoric.
Give me the name of one president who never lied during his term in office. Heck, give me one name of any politician who never lied during his or her term of public service. This thread is pointless.
I think you have very well described the confusion I feel. I am not sure what to do (except pray). Part of me wants to think the best and avoid analysis of the actions taken by the administration. Part of me feels there is a deceiver in our midst. I respect those in authority but I do not trust their leadership. I personally believe they have wrong motives and agendas. I believe they deceive people and have hidden plans that are against the Constitution and God. They love power and position. But I also understand that God chooses who will lead and the more the nation turns away from God the more cruel and deceiving the government will become- we will reap what we sow. I personally believe we are well on our way to some Orwellian scenario here and globally. Revelations 13:15-17 15And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Rhester; I apoligize if I've added to your confusion. In my opinion there is no such thing as a perfect political party and in democratic systems its impossible to have a party or major candidate that will fit perfectly the views of any single voter or small group of voters. With the represenative republic and balance of powers in our system this is even more true because compromise is necessary to get anything done. My own view of things is that the way to go is divided government. Where no single party dominates the mechanism of government. While this means there will be gridlock and innefficient government I've come to believe that governmental efficiency isn't all that bad as often the legislation pushed through tends to reflect the short term views of whatever party has sway rather than the broader term interests of the country as a whole. That's a big reason why I voted for and campaigned for Kerry. I honestly do feel that the GW Bush Admin has done a terrible job but also had some deep doubts about Kerry Admin.. The difference though is that in 2004 it was unlikely for their to be a Democrat Congress and the Republican Congress would keep Kerry in check.
Actually politics is what it is and you have certainly not added anything to my own confusions, you want confusion try being a pastor of a church- imagine the D&D crew packing into a small building once a week to hear 'your' message (which is supposed to come from God or at least the Bible) .
God...I didn't know whether to put this in the BusH lied thread or one of the many torture threads... drip...drip...drip... ----------------- Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim By DOUGLAS JEHL WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials. The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition. The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons. The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced. A government official said that some intelligence provided by Mr. Libi about Al Qaeda had been accurate, and that Mr. Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated. A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.'s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors. At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Mr. Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking Qaeda leader in American custody. A Nov. 6 report in The New York Times, citing the Defense Intelligence Agency document, said he had made the assertions about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons while in American custody. Mr. Libi was indeed initially held by the United States military in Afghanistan, and was debriefed there by C.I.A. officers, according to the new account provided by the current and former government officials. But despite his high rank, he was transferred to Egypt for further interrogation in January 2002 because the White House had not yet provided detailed authorization for the C.I.A. to hold him. While he made some statements about Iraq and Al Qaeda when in American custody, the officials said, it was not until after he was handed over to Egypt that he made the most specific assertions, which were later used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. Beginning in March 2002, with the capture of a Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, the C.I.A. adopted a practice of maintaining custody itself of the highest-ranking captives, a practice that became the main focus of recent controversy related to detention of suspected terrorists. The agency currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world. Reports that the prisons have included locations in Eastern Europe have stirred intense discomfort on the continent and have dogged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit there this week. Mr. Libi was returned to American custody in February 2003, when he was transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to the current and former government officials. He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004, and his current location is not known. A C.I.A. spokesman refused Thursday to comment on Mr. Libi's case. The current and former government officials who agreed to discuss the case were granted anonymity because most details surrounding Mr. Libi's case remain classified. During his time in Egyptian custody, Mr. Libi was among a group of what American officials have described as about 150 prisoners sent by the United States from one foreign country to another since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks for the purposes of interrogation. American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured. Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, said in a telephone interview on Thursday that he had no specific knowledge of Mr. Libi's case. Mr. Fahmy acknowledged that some prisoners had been sent to Egypt by mutual agreement between the United States and Egypt. "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture," Mr. Fahmy said. "We're not in the business of torturing anyone." In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons. Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases." The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made public last month unclassified passages from the February 2002 document, which said it was probable that Mr. Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers." The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons. Mr. Levin has since asked the agency to declassify four other intelligence reports, three of them from February 2002, to see if they also expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi's credibility. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. Levin said he could not comment on the circumstances surrounding Mr. Libi's detention because the matter was classified. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/p...=1134104400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition. Extraordinary Rendition rox.
Report: Bush Had More Prewar Intelligence Than Congress By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A23 A congressional report made public yesterday concluded that President Bush and his inner circle had access to more intelligence and reviewed more sensitive material than what was shared with Congress when it gave Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. Democrats said the 14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501813.html Here's the report http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.pdf
Sadly, you're right. But when has facts ever been a concern to Bush supporters? [edit] facts = bush bashing I keep forgetting that...
