Something to ponder

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

You know what?, that makes PERFECT sense. I dont know why it was'nt thought of before

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?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

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.

Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice eh uh.......shame on...uhhhh

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]

"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.