Not about Bush's response to Katrina

That’s an unbiased source??? There’s no agenda there? Come on, I don’t cite Adbusters, please don’t cite MRC.[/quote]

Attack the message… not the messenger. What statistics from the site do you dispute?[/quote]
If you’re going to use a blatantly biased source to provide proof of bias in the media that is dead-set in line with the bias the source is deliberately set up to find, you should be prepared to defend it instead of pussying out.

My, what unusually thin skin you have today, Comrade. Where is your usual sense of humor?

It’s the juxtaposition I find irresistable: Comrade Stalin says he doesn’t read communist propaganda. Get it? :laughing:[/quote]
:astonished: :noway:

[quote=“bob”]So the threat was mounting, real and dangerous, “immediate”, a graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined, serious and growing, terrible, a threat of unique “urgency”, and significant to boot. Lets have a look at some of what the dictionary says about some of these words.

Mounting - increasing in intensity
Real - actually existing
Immediate - nearest, next, “direct”
Grave - extremely serious or threatening
Serious - not negligable/ dangerous
Urgent - requiring immediate action or attention
Significant - not negligable

To a lawyer all of this might not add up to imminent but by god I bet it added up to just that in the popular imagination. I will go further and bet that the bush administration were betting on exactly the same thing.[/quote]

Well, sure… if the general public was not listening to the debate and not reading the actual statements made by Bush over and over defining and clarifying his meaning… if the general public allowed themselves to be spoon-fed the debate by the media… then yes, they very likely would be confuse. Who is at fault for that?

You cannot escape the fact that Bush explicitly stated over and over that we cannot wait until the threat “becomes imminent”. That was the whole argument about using a pre-emptive invasion when the threat was NOT “imminent”. What did you think that was all about? Why do you think the critics were arguing that we should not invade Iraq as a pre-emptive measure? They were arguing that pre-emptive invasions/attacks are justified at international law only when the threat sought to be deflected is “imminent”.

I’m sorry, but, there is a clear and obvious distinction between the meaning of the word “imminent” and all of those other words used to describe the threat then posed by Iraq. If people did not then or do not now understand that difference, especially in the context of the debate, then, IMO, they either are not paying attention or they simply do not want to know, as knowing will require them to adjust their thinking regarding Bush… and that would simply be unthinkable.

Every single person and organization on the planet is blatently biased.

If you are unwilling to consider the data provided, you are the one who is “pussying out” … :unamused:

Now, care to explain which of the statistics provided on that cite are incorrect?

Or, are you just going to “pussy out”?

Oh, alright… have a look at what Spinsanity said about the misrepresentations. :unamused:

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

I only stated that the media has consistently misrepresented Bush’s message. That much is clear. The media still lazily or purposely reports that Bush characterized the threat then posed by Iraq as “imminent”. That is not true and it is indefensible. The media consistently and still misrepresents what Bush stated about the Niger yellow cake. This misrepresentation is a matter of fact. You can easily check the veracity of the same.

The other fact that can easily verified is that the media is largely liberal. I have no idea whether the media purposely distort the President’s message. But, I know for a fact that they have done so. Consistently, too.

[quote=“flike”]By the way, I find it interesting but not unusual that you wish strongly to hold the media accountable for any current opacity of Bush’s March, 2003, stance, yet you fail to argue even once that Bush or his adminstration are accountable for it at all.

If it’s so important, why doesn’t President Bush hold a townhall meeting now, an open one, and discuss this very thing? More importantly, why did he not do this as many times as necessary to accomplish his communication goals?[/quote]

How many of Bush’s speeches have I cited showing exactly what he said?

Why isn’t it sufficient for people to just read the actual statements spoken over and over again? Are people too lazy to read the actual speeches? Are they incapable of understanding the text? Or, are they simply prejudiced against Bush and all-too-willing to be spoon-fed the media’s distorted message?

I think its the latter.

The only thing that was imminent in March of 2003 was that UN weapons inspections were about to make clear that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction arsenals didn’t exist and there would go the chief rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The Bush Administration of course knew this better than anyone else so when its supporters say now that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the main reason why Iraq was invaded and there was nothing imminently threatening about Iraq in March, 2003 they’re actually telling the truth finally.

Where the lie persists though is when they ignore the rush to war in 2003 as if it never happened or continue to peddle the myth that without the warmongering drumbeats about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction threat in 2002 and 2003 the unprovoked invasion of Iraq would still somehow have happened.

While I also believe that the dominant point of view in the U.S. news media is liberal Democratic, I’m not aware of a major newspaper or television network that didn’t support the invasion of Iraq and Bush’s policies in the Middle East wholeheartedly.

It’s only been in the last year that they’ve recanted as the contrivances behind the invasion began to disintegrate one by one, if only to keep some semblance of journalistic integrity.

That has loosened the constraints on the natural anti-conservative bias of many reporters and so it can be said truthfully that that has become a factor in much that’s reported about anything the president says or does these days.

spook,

I can’t remember… please remind me… the rush to war took how many months? I mean, Bush rushed it so fast he didn’t have time to obtain Congressional approval… Oh, no… Bush did get Congressional approval… But, he rushed so fast he didn’t even stop to see what the UN thought… oh, no… he did take the case to the UN… Well, it was still a dizzying rush, right?

Oh, yeah… also, how many UNSC resolutions, including the FINAL ULTIMATUM, did Iraq fail to comply with over how many years?

[quote]Well, sure… if the general public was not listening to the debate and not reading the actual statements made by Bush over and over defining and clarifying his meaning… if the general public allowed themselves to be spoon-fed the debate by the media… then yes, they very likely would be confuse. Who is at fault for that?
[/quote]

That would be the Bush administation for using such inflamatory language to describe a threat that wasn’t imminent. It wouldn’t have been possible to go to war with Iraq without a good deal of cajoling, and propaganda. Jesus, you are not blind to that, are you?

The only thing that was imminent in March 2003 was the window of opportunity afforded by the new moon.

Another side of this is that Bush is going to be more than just a lame duck president from here on in he’s going to be a dead duck president. It’ll be a great opportunity for other countries like Iran to take advantage of an ineffectual leadership. He’s just got too much blood on his hands (perception of at least) to be able to deliver.

Am I blind? What type of question is that? Can you read? Tell me what this says and means:

Well?

It’s chicken little, Tigerman. The sky wasn’t falling. And infact that statement is saying the threat is not only imminent, it is upon us. We just don’t know where the next blow is coming from. It’s propaganda and it was wrong. The sentence you highlight is a conditional that says the threat needs to be wiped out because it is upon us now. Waiting until the last minute in these circumstances has no place because what is caracterized as imminency has no place in this asymetry. Lets go now! We’ve got to do it now! Now is the time! We cannot afford to wait! I’m going now! Are you with me or against me now?!

It’s interesting you cite that quote, because all that is wrong about the war is wrapped up in the mindset, and paranoia contained in it.

I disagree. Many people have posted what administration people said (Cheney, Powell, Rice, etc.). Unless you’re arguing that the media misquoted these officials, then I think it’s clear the administration argued that the threat from WMD, especially nuclear weapons, was imminent.

Perhaps you are arguing that it takes a lawyer to parse President Bush’s speeches for his hidden, true meaning - and to buy the idea that only he speaks for the administration.

They may be liberal, but they are in large part fair.

[quote=“flike”]By the way, I find it interesting but not unusual that you wish strongly to hold the media accountable for any current opacity of Bush’s March, 2003, stance, yet you fail to argue even once that Bush or his adminstration are accountable for it at all.

If it’s so important, why doesn’t President Bush hold a townhall meeting now, an open one, and discuss this very thing? More importantly, why did he not do this as many times as necessary to accomplish his communication goals?[/quote]

[quote=“Tigerman”]How many of Bush’s speeches have I cited showing exactly what he said?

Why isn’t it sufficient for people to just read the actual statements spoken over and over again? Are people too lazy to read the actual speeches? Are they incapable of understanding the text? Or, are they simply prejudiced against Bush and all-too-willing to be spoon-fed the media’s distorted message?

I think its the latter.[/quote]

I think its incumbent on the President to be clear, especially when others speak for him, and often at what you assert we were supposed to understand only.

If President Bush feels he needs to set the record straight about Iraq and the rush to war there, then I’d recommend he find a credible venue in which to do so. Since he’s not interested in asking either asking Americans for shared sacrifice in Iraq or holding his administration accountable for its mistakes there, then frankly it becomes difficult to take him and his goals seriously.

Accusing Americans of being too lazy to read his speeches is extremely condescending and frankly something Peggy Noonan would accuse Democrats of doing. If one is interested at all in communicating with constituents, then one will take responsibility for the message received by them.

i gotta admit these Dubya-Heads are a committed bunch, much in the same way the folks at Jonestown were committed to Jim Jones.

I’m sure the “People’s Temple” had some redeeming qualities, but I don’t think the positives outweighed the underlying nastiness.

personally, i am enjoying this mess of a president. it’s destroying what the right-wingers worked for decades to create, a false front.

with every dumbass move Dubya exposes another weakness of the movement.

if this keeps up perhaps it’ll render folks like Ralph Reed, Dick Cheney and Bill Bennett impotent.

Would you like a nice, refreshing glass of Kool-Aid? :smiling_imp:

Fox,

You don’t understand the debate issue. The President was arguing for pre-emptive attack even in the absence of an “imminent” threat. The debate was taken up in Congress, in the press, in law schools, in churches and synagogues and mosques, and on the Internet… just about everywhere. Its amazing, IMO, that so many of you are still ignorant of the issue and of the significance of the terms used. Have a look at these:

[quote=“Steven C. Welsh, Esq., Center for Defense Information, Research Analyst”][url=http://www.cdi.org/news/law/preemptive-war.cfm]The Bush National Security Strategy has prompted continuing discussion over the legal and policy implications of preemptive military action and its impact on the future of the global security system. This backgrounder examines some of the international legal standards and related policy considerations forming the context of that debate.

Certainly, they emphasized a threat. But, an imminent threat… Certainly not. The only two times in all of the many statements made regarding the nature of the threat posed by Saddam were two replies (not statements) made in response to multipart questions… these were made by two low-level officials in the Bush administration and they were corrected subsequently. Even Spinsanity is on record as belittling the significance of these two replies.

And the statement below is an example of how the press did misrepresent the quote:

[quote]“This is about imminent threat.”

Let’s use Tigerman’s own argument that we can replace selected words with their synonyms to prove him wrong. Highlighted in bold a word good ol’ Rummy used more than once (see the quotes provided above by Tigerman), and he is a high-level official and policymaker:

[quote]Main Entry: imminent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: at hand
Synonyms: approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, immediate, impending, in prospect, in store, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, overhanging, possible, probable, threatening, to come, unavoidable, unescapable
Antonyms: remote[/quote]
thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=imminent

Nice try, Rascal. But, once again, you are pitifully wrong.

That would be a nice argument if, and only if, the term “imminent” did not have a special and precise meaning in the context of the debate, and if Bush did not go to pains to explain why he did not want to wait until the threat became “imminent”.

Speaking of the “context of the debate”… you are the one who has argued that the meaning of a word depends largly on the context. Moreover, in the context of the statement to which you refer, Rummy clearly distinguishes “imminent” and “immediate”:

If he meant “imminent” regarding the threat posed by bio-weapons, why didn’t he say so? He referred to the imminency of the threat re nukes in the same statement. Why did he use a different word to describe the threat posed by bio-weapons? Obviously because he understands the difference between those words in the context of the debate. Too bad you do not.

So, you are wrong. :smiley:

You will never be right, Rascal.

Tigerman, I used your argumentation as I stated, so it doesn’t matter what I have argued before for my point to be correct (i.e. your own argument working against you).
This also means your questions as to why Rummy phrased his statements this or that way are irrelevant, as long as you allow synonyms to be used then immediate = imminent.
Can’t have it both ways - either you stand by what you said or you don’t.

And you using context as an argument - now that’s ironic. :laughing:

[quote=“Rascal”]Tigerman, I used your argumentation as I stated, so it doesn’t matter what I have argued before for my point to be correct.
This also means your questions as to why Rummy phrased his statements this or that way are irrelevant, as long as you allow synonyms to be used then immediate = imminent.
Can’t have it both ways - either you stand by what you said or you don’t.

And you using context as an argument - now that’s ironic. :laughing:[/quote]

Rascal,

What part of this is so difficult for you to understand? We are not talking about petty discussion here on Forumosa. The fact is, the term “imminent” has a special and precise definition in relation to or in the context of the international law theory of just war and the right of pre-emption.

In this context, “imminent” and “immediate” do not have the same meaning, even if they are synonyms. And even if they are synonyms, so what? The issue is obviously the degree of the threat, and in the context of the issue, “immediate” is not of the same degree as “imminent”.

Its really pathetic to watch you try to score cheap debate points on this issue.

Why not just admit that you never understood the issue of the debate… or, if you think that you do understand the issue, then please explain why you argued previously that President Bush was in violation of international law regarding just wars? If you argue that he was in violation of international law re just wars because there was no “imminent” threat, then you admit that Bush never declared the threat posed by Iraq as “imminent” because Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war was a radical change of the traditional understanding of when a pre-emptive war was justified.

You cannot have it both ways. In any event, no matter what nonsense arguments you post, you cannot get away from this:

[quote=“President Bush on 28 January 2003”][b]

[quote=“Tigerman”]Rascal,

What part of this is so difficult for you to understand? We are not talking about petty discussion here on Forumosa. The fact is, the term “imminent” has a special and precise definition in relation to or in the context of the international law theory of just war and the right of pre-emption.[/quote]
There is nothing difficult to understand but the question remains: do you stand by your earlier argumentation that synonyms can be used or not?

If yes, then the argument backfires at you and Rumsfeld was indeed talking about an imminent threat, regardless what you now tell us about context and special definitions.
For all that we know he may have used different terms for rethoric rather than semantics. :wink:

[quote]In this context, “imminent” and “immediate” do not have the same meaning, even if they are synonyms. And even if they are synonyms, so what? The issue is obviously the degree of the threat, and in the context of the issue, “immediate” is not of the same degree as “imminent”.

Its really pathetic to watch you try to score cheap debate points on this issue.[/quote]
Pathetic because your argument works against you and you just can’t admit to that?
The way I look at Rumsfeld’s statement and the way I use it against your argument may actually be two different things that don’t contradict each other, you know …

[quote]…
This isn’t really that difficult to understand, IMO. :s[/quote]
No it isn’t but ignores all the statements that ensured us that Iraq is a threat and does possess WMD. Read the piep speeches.