PDA

View Full Version : The Prince of Lies



tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 06:22 AM
The Prince of Lies



By John Griffing

"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin

President Obama's skill as a liar is critical to his success as a Socialist.

Considering the zeal with which President Obama has in a very short time remade America, we can conclude that he will not stop until America is completely socialist. But one building block remains: government-controlled healthcare. As Lenin once said, "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." To embark upon such an ambitious project that has yet failed at every attempt, President Obama must lie, since it is clear that a sizeable majority opposes his healthcare reform.

And President Obama is a most gifted liar. We're not talking about a new Clintonian era of likeable misinformation. This is not, "I didn't inhale." President Clinton's loveable way of twisting the truth pales in comparison to Obama's brazen boldness in lying even when Obama knows he will be caught.

President Obama is a special breed of liar, employing an array of varying techniques intended to marshal public emotion in his favor. For example, he uses his own grandmother to gain sympathy for a plan that will leave millions of grandmothers without care.

Unlike his predecessors, when caught in the midst of a deception, Obama is not deterred. He lies to cover his lies. Remember confessed terrorist Bill Ayers? First, then-Senator Obama denied knowing Ayers at all. Then, when the evidence was incontrovertible that Obama had indeed not only known Ayers, but also worked with him professionally, Obama changed his defense to one of ignorance, claiming that he was only a child when Ayers committed his crimes, and assumed that Ayers had been rehabilitated. Obama has continued and applied this pattern to a host of crucial national questions.

Obama is a Socialist. And the authentic Socialist is not driven by morality or truth, but by the end that justifies the means.

This philosophy reveals itself quite starkly in President Obama's patent fabrications regarding his healthcare reform plans. Observe the consistent mismatch between the facts and what Obama says:

Obama says that he does not support a "single-payer system" even though his comments in favor of single-payer healthcare are on tape, and his "public option" amounts to a piecemeal takeover of private-sector medical coverage.

Obama says, "You will not be waiting in any lines," but Section 1151 of HR 3200 penalizes hospitals for the costs incurred in readmitting patients, permitting the Health and Human Services Secretary to "reduce" payments to hospitals for readmission, a decision likely to force the sick out into the cold. If a cancer patient has a relapse, they might as well get drunk on morphine, because readmission will be exceedingly difficult.

Obama ridicules the idea of "death panels" as right-wing hysteria, saying that HR 3200 contains no such entity. He is right. The Independent Medicare Advisory Council, the source of the death panel concerns, is the topic of another bill introduced by the Obama Administration. Its job? To cut Medicare payments. And specific sections of his proposed legislation create mechanisms that will result in the loss of care for elderly persons. In addition, Medicare Advantage programs would be ended, a cut of $150 billion. This has not stopped the President from saying, "We are not talking about cutting Medicare benefits."

Obama makes the transparently false claim that private insurance will not be affected by HR 3200, and that those who like their current plans can keep them, despite the fact that individual Americans will only be allowed to obtain private plans for a 5 year grace period, and government plans will become the default should citizens switch employers.

Obama says that "46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage. They are just vulnerable. If something happens, they go bankrupt, or they don't get the care they need." But everyone can currently obtain care, even if they cannot pay. That is why 60 hospitals in California have closed, because the law requires them to treat everyone. And that 46 million number is known to be bogus, since 9.7 million of this number are illegal aliens. By one estimate, 14 million Americans choose not to obtain coverage. 18 million are under 34 and are either dependents or simply opt not to seek insurance, according to one study. When these numbers are subtracted, only 5 million uninsured remain.

Obama says that "we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need," but responding to a Medicare recipient that had been denied the only drug that would alleviate his condition, Obama had this to say, "Look, there may be -- in nine out of 10 cases, the generic might work as well or better than the brand name. And we don't want to just subsidize the drug companies if you've got one that works just as well as another."

Obama says that the healthcare reform measure will not be used to expand federal funding of abortions, knowing that the vaunted Hyde amendment applies only to Medicaid, not the public option, and that the Capps Amendment, as passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, explicitly requires every enrollee of a government-subsidized health insurance plan to be charged an extra fee to cover abortions. Obama can hardly plead ignorance.

Obama makes outrageous claims that his healthcare reform will reduce the deficit and rein in healthcare spending, but the CBO says just the opposite. How can the present healthcare crisis, supposedly a crisis of spending, be solved with more spending, and by an institution known for its reckless disregard for fiscal realities?

At the heart of this barrage of deception and dishonesty is an uncommon genius, innate to only the most devious sort. While Obama's opponents spend their precious time addressing each new lie, Obama will keep the focus off the end-zone, and government healthcare will sail into place. This strategy has a name; it is called "the big lie," and it depends on a fundamental truth of human nature: fatigue.

At some point, citizens grow weary of hearing that their leaders are out for their ill, that political policies are nothing more than grand deceptions. Who wants to believe their President is a serial liar that seeks to impose full Socialism on the land of the free? Some truths are too big to contemplate, an observation that would lead one of the world's most successful propagandists to write:

It would never come into their [the people's] heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.


Obama is counting on this principle. Most Americans are growing tired and are ready for some sort of compromise, but we cannot give in to this impulse. Obama will not give up and neither can we. Be encouraged. Don't lose hope. We must push forward, and keep the heat on the enemies of freedom. Americans must stay alert or the lie of all lies will consume what is left of liberty in America.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_prince_of_lies.html at September 03, 2009 - 06:19:41 AM EDT

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 06:58 AM
Under the category of "big lies" repeated often enough becoming the truth, try to find an actual source where Lenin said "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." As far as I can tell, this is a "quote" invented by the right to help fight health care reform. It has been repeated over and over again but never by any source other than other right wing commentators, not one of whom has ever cited where Lenin made the statement. I find it hard to place credence in anyone writing about liars who begins with a lie.

EDIT: BTW, the same goes for this favorite quote: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin. I've yet to see any actual source attribution other than one that said "probably proverbial", a polite way of saying probably just another lie.

road kill
09-03-2009, 07:32 AM
Under the category of "big lies" repeated often enough becoming the truth, try to find an actual source where Lenin said "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." As far as I can tell, this is a "quote" invented by the right to help fight health care reform. It has been repeated over and over again but never by any source other than other right wing commentators, not one of whom has ever cited where Lenin made the statement. I find it hard to place credence in anyone writing about liars who begins with a lie.

EDIT: BTW, the same goes for this favorite quote: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin. I've yet to see any actual source attribution other than one that said "probably proverbial", a polite way of saying probably just another lie.

Again, all bow to the "SOLE POSSESOR OF THE TRUTH!!"

Roger Perry
09-03-2009, 08:44 AM
When Obama ran for President his campaign was mostly run on reforming health care. He laid out his plan then and there was no cry of socialism then.

Bush promised health care reforms but never worked on health care once he was elected President.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 09:08 AM
Under the category of "big lies" repeated often enough becoming the truth, try to find an actual source where Lenin said "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." As far as I can tell, this is a "quote" invented by the right to help fight health care reform. It has been repeated over and over again but never by any source other than other right wing commentators, not one of whom has ever cited where Lenin made the statement. I find it hard to place credence in anyone writing about liars who begins with a lie.

EDIT: BTW, the same goes for this favorite quote: "A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin. I've yet to see any actual source attribution other than one that said "probably proverbial", a polite way of saying probably just another lie.

Which is the bigger lie? 46 million Americans wothout health insurance or the quotes? How about 95% of Americans will get a tax cut or the quotes? Or that a crisis in medical spending can be solved with more spending? Look at public edication increased federal spending brought more federal control, less local control, and a total loss of control. Why would health care work any differently?

Here some Lenin quotes Obama would like;

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. ”

“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

Check those.

ducknwork
09-03-2009, 09:17 AM
When Obama ran for President his campaign was mostly run on reforming health care. He laid out his plan then and there was no cry of socialism then.

Bush promised health care reforms but never worked on health care once he was elected President.

Methinks he got a little sidetracked with something a smidge more important.

9/11 regards...
________
TEEN RUSSIAN (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/1047/russian/videos/1)

Buzz
09-03-2009, 09:35 AM
Methinks he got a little sidetracked with something a smidge more important.

9/11 regards...

I understand that it's hard to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time...

road kill
09-03-2009, 09:39 AM
I understand that it's hard to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time...
Yep, you sure got us on that one, holy smokes!!

Oh, BTW, it's pretty hard to talk without a teleprompter too, isn't it??:D

Julie R.
09-03-2009, 09:47 AM
Under the category of "big lies" repeated often enough becoming the truth, ... "A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin. I've yet to see any actual source attribution other than one that said "probably proverbial", a polite way of saying probably just another lie.

I think we all agree that regardless of who said it or if it's proverbial, pathological liars usually do end up believing their own lies after they tell them often enough.

Buzz
09-03-2009, 09:51 AM
I think we all agree that regardless of who said it or if it's proverbial, pathological liars usually do end up believing their own lies after they tell them often enough.

Yes, but you have to tie the quote to someone like Lenin, because that fits the characterization of Obama as a commie. It helps feed the anxieties of the paranoid.

K G
09-03-2009, 10:08 AM
I understand that it's hard to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time...

Keep workin' on it, Buzz....you'll master it eventually...;-)

kg

Roger Perry
09-03-2009, 10:40 AM
Methinks he got a little sidetracked with something a smidge more important.

9/11 regards...

No, he was too busy trying to figure out a way to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But he still had plenty of time (8 years) (6 with a majority Congress) to do something about health care and did nothing.

Obama still has to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan along with a ruined economy that bush left him with and still is trying to put a health care reform through.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 10:56 AM
No, he was too busy trying to figure out a way to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But he still had plenty of time (8 years) (6 with a majority Congress) to do something about health care and did nothing.

Obama still has to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan along with a ruined economy that bush left him with and still is trying to put a health care reform through.


It is a health care take over not reform. Reform would get government out and put providers and insurers at the employ of the patients. Instead of providers being employed by insurance companies and governments, and insurance companies employed by the employers.

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 10:57 AM
Which is the bigger lie? 46 million Americans wothout health insurance or the quotes? How about 95% of Americans will get a tax cut or the quotes? Or that a crisis in medical spending can be solved with more spending? Look at public edication increased federal spending brought more federal control, less local control, and a total loss of control. Why would health care work any differently?

Here some Lenin quotes Obama would like;

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. ”

“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

Check those.
Most of these cannot be traced to Lenin as far as I can determine. The currency statement traces back to John Maynard Keynes in 1920 who said this at one point as a paraphrase of sentiments that some people ascribed to Lenin. (They Never Said It by Paul Boller & John George, Google Books)

At some point you have to ask yourself why quotes get made up and then repeated time after time. Remember, as Rush Limbaugh said, "The only way to beat the Socialists is to tell so many lies that they no longer know what is real." Or as Hannity said, "We are at war and in war anything goes. Whatever lies we may tell are necessary to convince people of the one central truth: liberals are evil and must be defeated."

Rather than be upset when I raise such questions, why don't you try checking some of thes things yourself? When you see a quote that seems almost too good to be true, check to see if there is any verifiable source indicated for the quote. If there is not, it is probably because there isn't one. The ask yourself if the quote actually reflects the person to who it is attributed or if it reflects how the person citing the "quote" would like you to view that person. The difference is the difference between truth and lies.

And, by the way, my "quotes" of Limbaugh and Hannity are pure fabrications -- or at least I hope they are. However, they are as accurate as most of the favorite "quotes" I see attributed to heros and villains on conservative web sites.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 11:01 AM
Most of these cannot be traced to Lenin as far as I can determine. The currency statement traces back to John Maynard Keynes in 1920 who said this at one point as a paraphrase of sentiments that some people ascribed to Lenin. (They Never Said It by Paul Boller & John George, Google Books)

At some point you have to ask yourself why quotes get made up and then repeated time after time. Remember, as Rush Limbaugh said, "The only way to beat the Socialists is to tell so many lies that they no longer know what is real." Or as Hannity said, "We are at war and in war anything goes. Whatever lies we may tell are necessary to convince people of the one central truth: liberals are evil and must be defeated."

Rather than be upset when I raise such questions, why don't you try checking some of thes things yourself? When you see a quote that seems almost too good to be true, check to see if there is any verifiable source indicated for the quote. If there is not, it is probably because there isn't one. The ask yourself if the quote actually reflects the person to who it is attributed or if it reflects how the person citing the "quote" would like you to view that person. The difference is the difference between truth and lies.

And, by the way, my "quotes" of Limbaugh and Hannity are pure fabrications -- or at least I hope they are. However, they are as accurate as most of the favorite "quotes" I see attributed to heros and villains on conservative web sites.

I have

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/Vladimir_Lenin/

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 11:10 AM
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/Vladimir_Lenin/
I've been to that site and I've read it. Do you see any citations of where those statements were made? Lenin wrote many things. Many, if not most, were translated into English and most can be searched on line. Thinkexist.com has no quality standards limiting what is attributed to whom or requiring any documentation of sources.

cotts135
09-03-2009, 11:20 AM
Again, all bow to the "SOLE POSSESOR OF THE TRUTH!!"

Whats your problem man? Just because you might have a distant relationship with the truth does not mean everyone does. He asked what is a reasonable question. Because he questioned an assertion made in an article (because he couldn't find any truth to it) that gives you license to ridicule him? If you can't answer the question than say so...................but to go after him personally is just something juveniles do.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 11:29 AM
I've been to that site and I've read it. Do you see any citations of where those statements were made? Lenin wrote many things. Many, if not most, were translated into English and most can be searched on line. Thinkexist.com has no quality standards limiting what is attributed to whom or requiring any documentation of sources.

How about this one "46 million Americans without health insurance" by Obama

Can they all be wrong?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vladimir_ilyich_lenin.html


http://www.quotesandpoem.com/quotes/listquotes/author/vladimir-lenin

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Lenin/


http://www.great-quotes.com/cgi-bin/viewquotes.cgi?action=search&Author_First_Name=Vladimir+Ilyich&Author_Last_Name=Lenin&Movie=

Bob Gutermuth
09-03-2009, 11:32 AM
Save your breath, if you had a video of Comrade Lenin saying it the left would not believe it.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 11:37 AM
Save your breath, if you had a video of Comrade Lenin saying it the left would not believe it.

You mean like the Van Jones videos?

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 11:51 AM
How about this one "46 million Americans without health insurance" by Obama

Can they all be wrong?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/vladimir_ilyich_lenin.html


http://www.quotesandpoem.com/quotes/listquotes/author/vladimir-lenin

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Lenin/


http://www.great-quotes.com/cgi-bin/viewquotes.cgi?action=search&Author_First_Name=Vladimir+Ilyich&Author_Last_Name=Lenin&Movie=
The 46 million uninsured comment comes from annual surveys of health insurance conducted by the Census Bureau. See, for example, http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html. (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html)

With respect to your other links, the simple answer is yes. Those quotes are routinely repeated all over. However, at no point have i been able to discover any actual reference to where or when Lenin made the alleged statements. It's like the oft quoted statement attributed to Cicero concerning balancing the budget. When you dig, you find nothing but air.

By contrast, if you look up a phrase such as "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." you will quickly find a source citation (it happens to be Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program). Interestingly, when I visited Moscow in 1964, this statement was in bold type on the wall of my floor but was attributed to Lenin.;-)

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 12:01 PM
Save your breath, if you had a video of Comrade Lenin saying it the left would not believe it.

Bob,

When I looked up the first quote it was because it didn't sound like any of the documents that I had ever read by Lenin in my history classes. I simply wondered where it came from. What I found was eight pages of Google links to the quote. I tracked every single one and not one included any source citation. When I look up a quote that is true, I will (almost) always find a source citation with no difficulty at all. The Cicero budget quote, which you once cited yourself, began in an historical novel. It was a fictional statement put into Cicero's mouth by the author, not something Cicero ever said or wrote. That is fairly typical of the origins of apocryphal quotes.

What bothers me more than undocumented quotes, are those who consider the truth of those quotes to be irrelevant as long as it supports the point they wish to make. That, in my mind, is the line between making a mistake and lying.

ducknwork
09-03-2009, 12:13 PM
No, he was too busy trying to figure out a way to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But he still had plenty of time (8 years) (6 with a majority Congress) to do something about health care and did nothing.

Obama still has to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan along with a ruined economy that bush left him with and still is trying to put a health care reform through.

*snore*

Wake me up when you libs quit blaming W for everything under the sun...
________
Chrysler Newport Specifications (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_Newport)

TXduckdog
09-03-2009, 01:22 PM
The 46 million uninsured comment comes from annual surveys of health insurance conducted by the Census Bureau. See, for example, http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html. (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html)

With respect to your other links, the simple answer is yes. Those quotes are routinely repeated all over. However, at no point have i been able to discover any actual reference to where or when Lenin made the alleged statements. It's like the oft quoted statement attributed to Cicero concerning balancing the budget. When you dig, you find nothing but air.

By contrast, if you look up a phrase such as "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." you will quickly find a source citation (it happens to be Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program). Interestingly, when I visited Moscow in 1964, this statement was in bold type on the wall of my floor but was attributed to Lenin.;-)


Jeff.....this is an actual quote and it's been repeated by so many democrats that the only thing that changes is the #.

road kill
09-03-2009, 01:26 PM
Whats your problem man? Just because you might have a distant relationship with the truth does not mean everyone does. He asked what is a reasonable question. Because he questioned an assertion made in an article (because he couldn't find any truth to it) that gives you license to ridicule him? If you can't answer the question than say so...................but to go after him personally is just something juveniles do.

Because, "MAN," he claims everything posted here is a lie unless he posts it, "MAN."

Not so.

He is not the "sole possesor" of the truth.

Perception is reality, so it may be HIS truth, "MAN," but it ain't mine.

Just because the guy uses words like humvees use gas does not make him right (or wrong).

He is a professed "secular progressive" and that is not my America.

And I have as much right to state that as he does to discredit every post on here that goes against his ideology, "MAN!!"

keep on keepin on.....cause road kill says so!!


BTW--as far as your assertion that I am a juvenile, I have been dealing with maturity issues since I was 4 "MAN.":p

Roger Perry
09-03-2009, 02:52 PM
*snore*

Wake me up when you libs quit blaming W for everything under the sun...

Just because I am not a member of the far right or agree with most of their hypocritical principles, it does not make me a liberal.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 03:29 PM
The 46 million uninsured comment comes from annual surveys of health insurance conducted by the Census Bureau. See, for example, http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html. (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/08/26/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops.html)

With respect to your other links, the simple answer is yes. Those quotes are routinely repeated all over. However, at no point have i been able to discover any actual reference to where or when Lenin made the alleged statements. It's like the oft quoted statement attributed to Cicero concerning balancing the budget. When you dig, you find nothing but air.

By contrast, if you look up a phrase such as "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." you will quickly find a source citation (it happens to be Karl Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program). Interestingly, when I visited Moscow in 1964, this statement was in bold type on the wall of my floor but was attributed to Lenin.;-)

Included in that is 12 million or so are illegals. That ain't American! Another 8 or 10 million can afford it and choose not to have insurance. It is at least a lie by 12 million!

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 04:05 PM
Jeff.....this is an actual quote and it's been repeated by so many democrats that the only thing that changes is the #.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I have actually posted links to the census reports a few times. The 2007 report showed a higher number of uninsured. The number declined from 47 million in 2007 to 46 million (rounded from 45.7 million) in 2008 and most expect that the number of uninsured is increasing significantly in 2009 as a result of job losses. Are you comparing the number being cited to the use of "quotes" that can't be traced back to their supposed authors or to "facts" for which there is no substantiation?

Generally, it seems to me that, notwithstanding road kill's desires, we could all benefit from questioning some of the "facts" that we use to support our arguments. For me, a benefit of these discussions is that I find myself challenging more of the "facts" being cited on both sides of a number of issues.

I know that some on this forum are perfectly happy believing that conservatives and liberals are fundamentally different and can never be expected to co-exist until one or the other is driven into hiding. I believe that thinking is complete BS and a sure map for the destruction of a country I love. If there is to be hope for living together it will be based on:

commitments we make as individuals to inform ourselves of the facts and reject dishonesty even when it comes from those with whom we agree;
commitment to a democratic process for decision making even when we disagree vehemently with the decisions made; and
acceptance that people with whom we disagree may love this country just as much as we do.Disagreeing with each other passionately is not un-American. We have passionately disagreed with each other ever since our country was founded (witness the battles between the Federalists represented by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans represented by Jefferson).

Only once in our history did we allow our passions to drive us as far apart as we are today. That led to a Civil War which should have taught us that any efforts to start divorce proceedings is guaranteed to end in disaster for all.

We don't need to agree on issues. We do need to agree on a process that argues facts instead of reducing all conversation to name calling and gotcha rhetoric. This is made more difficult by the demagogues who have managed to convert mindless political anger into millions in their bank accounts. If we let them lead the way, we will all be losers in the end.

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 04:08 PM
Included in that is 12 million or so are illegals. That ain't American! Another 8 or 10 million can afford it and choose not to have insurance. It is at least a lie by 12 million!
Actually, the number includes about 12 million people who are foreign born. Most of those are naturalized citizens and legal immigrants. Several million are illegal immigrants who are excluded from the current health bills.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 04:15 PM
Actually, the number includes about 12 million people who are foreign born. Most of those are naturalized citizens and legal immigrants. Several million are illegal immigrants who are excluded from the current health bills.


so you are saying their are no illegals in the 46 million.

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 04:31 PM
so you are saying their are no illegals in the 46 million.
No, I said that there were several million (the estimates I have seen are around 4 million) illegals in the 46 million uninsured, not the 12 million implied by your comment. The Census Bureau identifies foreign vs. US born, but does not check immigration status as part of the same survey.

tpaschal30
09-03-2009, 05:59 PM
No, I said that there were several million (the estimates I have seen are around 4 million) illegals in the 46 million uninsured, not the 12 million implied by your comment. The Census Bureau identifies foreign vs. US born, but does not check immigration status as part of the same survey.

Let's see? According to wiki"Between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants are estimated to be living in the United States; due to the nature of illegal immigration, the exact number is unknown." Where are the other estimated 8 to 16 million?

Here is a number
http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1036.gif



The 2005 CBO report said that the majority of the uninsured are either illegal immigrants (as many as 12 million), or earn between $50,000 and $75,000 annually (8.3 million), or earn more than $75,000 a year (8.74 million) and elect not to purchase health insurance. That adds up to 29 million of 46 million total.

Of the rest, approximately 8.8 million are without insurance for four months or less and then return to the ranks of the insured. That leaves some 8.2 million Americans the Kaiser Family Foundation's analysis describes as "chronically uninsured."

TXduckdog
09-03-2009, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE=YardleyLabs;494135]I'm not sure I understand your point. I have actually posted links to the census reports a few times. The 2007 report showed a higher number of uninsured. The number declined from 47 million in 2007 to 46 million (rounded from 45.7 million) in 2008 and most expect that the number of uninsured is increasing significantly in 2009 as a result of job losses. Are you comparing the number being cited to the use of "quotes" that can't be traced back to their supposed authors or to "facts" for which there is no substantiation?

Sorry Jeff about not being clear....Obama and other Dems have quoted that statistic many times in public.

I have also seen analysis that that number....46MM....is highly inflated. There was an article not long back in the WSJ.

YardleyLabs
09-03-2009, 08:47 PM
I'm not sure I understand your point. I have actually posted links to the census reports a few times. The 2007 report showed a higher number of uninsured. The number declined from 47 million in 2007 to 46 million (rounded from 45.7 million) in 2008 and most expect that the number of uninsured is increasing significantly in 2009 as a result of job losses. Are you comparing the number being cited to the use of "quotes" that can't be traced back to their supposed authors or to "facts" for which there is no substantiation?

Sorry Jeff about not being clear....Obama and other Dems have quoted that statistic many times in public.

I have also seen analysis that that number....46MM....is highly inflated. There was an article not long back in the WSJ.
You can see the census data at http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf.

The estimated total is about 46 million uninsured. If you read thedetail in the report you find that there are aspects of that which result in potential overstatements and factors that result in potential understatements. Overall, the Census Bureau believes the number is a good estimate of the number of people who are uninsured for part of the year and still uninsured at the time of the census, but that it overstates the number that are uninsured for the full year. However, they also suspect that it understates the number who uninsured during the census period but have health insurance at the time the survey is done. They believe that the number who have insurance that is inadequate to meet their health needs is not captured. Some studies estimate the number of uninsured and underinsured at being much higher than 46 million.

I am guessing that this is the WSJ article you are remembering: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579852347944191.html

Overall, it notes one study that suggests tht the Census estimate maybe too high by 2.5 million based on methodology. It also notes that the CBO cost estimates may not have included adjustments for changes in state medicaid programs that could reduce the number of uninsured. Both of these factors would have reduced estimates of the cost of the proposed programs if I am reading the story correctly (I don't have time to be more careful now and may have screwed up).



Let's see? According to wiki"Between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants are estimated to be living in the United States; due to the nature of illegal immigration, the exact number is unknown." Where are the other estimated 8 to 16 million?

The Census analysis of the foreign born uninsured population is at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/uninsured_fs_2007.pdf

The total number of foreign born uninsured persons, according to Census data is 12.4 million in 2007 (the most recent year available). That number includes both foreign born citizens and foreign born non-citizens according to the Census report. The non-citizen number includes a mix of both legal and illegal residents. The total number of foreign born non-citizens is less than 10 million. I was not able to find the percentage of these estimated to be illegals, so I would accept the 7+ million included in your post.

It would not surprise me to discover that the Census undercounted the number of illegals. If you remember, there were actually a number of battles where Democrats fought for using counting techniques to improve the accuracy of the census with respect to illegals. Republicans opposed these technniques. The reason is that the Constitution, in allocating electoral votes and congressional seats, does not distinguish between legal and illegal residents. Thus, an accurate count would inflate the populations of the states where those illegals are resident, shifting political power and Federal dollars toward them.

Assuming the number of illegal is understated, as you suggest, the Census also undercounted the number of uninsured. However, this would not affect the number of uninsured that would be covered by any of the proposed health plans since those plans exclude illegals from benefits. Note that the majority of non-citizen residents -- legal or illegal -- have health insurance and are not included in the uninsured counts. I think those are the millions that you think are missing, but I'm not sure.

zeus3925
09-03-2009, 09:48 PM
Yep, you sure got us on that one, holy smokes!!

Oh, BTW, it's pretty hard to talk without a teleprompter too, isn't it??:D

Most people would appreciate a teleprompter if they were doing any kind of public speaking --you ought to try it sometime without.

Cody Covey
09-03-2009, 11:45 PM
you would assume if your job was to speak to the public you would actually be able to do it. Not read a speech that someone else prepared for you.

road kill
09-04-2009, 08:02 AM
Most people would appreciate a teleprompter if they were doing any kind of public speaking --you ought to try it sometime without.

I do speak to large groups, often.

I know my subject matter, and rehearse my presentations.

NO teleprompter!!

You ought to try it sometime, with knowledge of your subject!!:p

ducknwork
09-04-2009, 09:13 AM
Ventriloquist dummies just say what the guy with the hand in his butt wants him to say.

Just sayin...
________
CHEAPEST VAPORIZER (http://vaporizerinfo.com/)

Steve Hester
09-04-2009, 09:45 AM
Ventriloquist dummies just say what the guy with the hand in his butt wants him to say.

Just sayin...

I don't care who ya are. That right there is funny.......:p

cotts135
09-04-2009, 12:38 PM
Because, "MAN," he claims everything posted here is a lie unless he posts it, "MAN."
Can you show me where he has said that?




Perception is reality, so it may be HIS truth, "MAN," but it ain't mine.
Nor does it have to be. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your facts.



He is a professed "secular progressive" and that is not my America.
Yeah so what? You have professed to be a right wing radical, neither changes the truth.

And I have as much right to state that as he does to discredit every post on here that goes against his ideology, "MAN!!"
You might try doing so without using personal attacts

keep on keepin on.....cause road kill says so!!



BTW--as far as your assertion that I am a juvenile, I have been dealing with maturity issues since I was 4 "MAN.":p
What can I say to that? :p

zeus3925
09-04-2009, 01:33 PM
I do speak to large groups, often.

I know my subject matter, and rehearse my presentations.

NO teleprompter!!

You ought to try it sometime, with knowledge of your subject!!:p

I have with no promter or notes!!!

Henry V
09-04-2009, 10:30 PM
Thanks for the entertainment in this one folks.

A post about how Obama lies is started with a quote that cannot be verified and then what follows in an article that is full of lies and many statements without any support. Jeff posts facts and reasonable arguments, RK attacks but does not post facts to counter, the word comrade gets mixed in, and the next thing you are talking about illegal immigrants, and finally, the teleprompter. To complete the right wing talking point circle, I'll just ask: where is his birth certificate? Where is it?

Speaking of repeating something enough times so folks start believe it. Just how many times is Obama called a socialist here and in that article?

The original article makes many statements that I view as lies. Could someone here provide specific support for the statements in the article like
President Obama has in a very short time remade America really, how, specifically?
or
President Obama is a most gifted liar. Ok, list some. As has been pointed out the 47 million is supported by the census.
or
He lies to cover his lies
or
Obama is a Socialist. Please, provide some specifics.
Regarding all the health care reform lies in the article, just search health care reform myths and all of those presented are refuted by credible non-partisan sources.

If you want to review an administration that pathologically lied check out http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm or google search "cheney lies". Too many to cite there. Hope you have a lot of bandwidth.;)

road kill
09-05-2009, 08:36 AM
Thanks for the entertainment in this one folks.

A post about how Obama lies is started with a quote that cannot be verified and then what follows in an article that is full of lies and many statements without any support. Jeff posts facts and reasonable arguments, RK attacks but does not post facts to counter, the word comrade gets mixed in, and the next thing you are talking about illegal immigrants, and finally, the teleprompter. To complete the right wing talking point circle, I'll just ask: where is his birth certificate? Where is it?

Speaking of repeating something enough times so folks start believe it. Just how many times is Obama called a socialist here and in that article?

The original article makes many statements that I view as lies. Could someone here provide specific support for the statements in the article like really, how, specifically?
or Ok, list some. As has been pointed out the 47 million is supported by the census.
or
or Please, provide some specifics.
Regarding all the health care reform lies in the article, just search health care reform myths and all of those presented are refuted by credible non-partisan sources.

If you want to review an administration that pathologically lied check out http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm or google search "cheney lies". Too many to cite there. Hope you have a lot of bandwidth.;)
That is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Yardleys "facts" (as well as yours) are as questionable and debatable as any one elses.
His sources are no better than anyone elses.
And his sources more often than not are as politically and ideologically slanted as anyone elses.
But every post that isn't aligned with his veiws is "Snoped" or debunk by some other link that matches your collective ideologies!

And if I'm not mistaken, (ask Yardley, he will admit this) he has called people names on this board (such as "blowhard" :rolleyes:).

And in regard to your sanctimonious indignation on where this thread has gone.......get over it.

They all go goofy!!

Peace, brotha!!:cool:

YardleyLabs
09-05-2009, 09:46 AM
You seem to have difficulty understanding the distinction between facts and opinions since you treat the terms almost as synonyms.

According to Merriam-Webster an opinion is defined as:

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

A fact is defined as:

3 : the quality of being actual : actuality (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actuality) <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

An opinion may be based simply on faith or may be the product of detailed analysis of evidence. One may choose to value opinions more or less depending on how they are justified and/or the credibility of the person expressing them. However, they remain opinions. When I say that I believe that George Bush was one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country. I am clearly expressing an opinion.

If I say that George Bush became President in 2001 following an election where his opponent received a larger number of votes than Bush and the electoral college vote ultimately came down to the state of Florida where the Supreme Court determined that a recount could not be done despite the closeness of the vote, that is a statement of historic fact that can be demonstrated through any number of authoritative sources, including the certified voting results from each state and the written opinion of the Supreme Court.

One can legitimately have disagreements about both facts and opinions.

Where there are disagreements about opinion, standard form is for each party to provide some description of the thought process behind their opinion. It is possible that, through such an exchange, one or both parties may modify their opinions. It is also possible that some predictions that were originally expressed as opinions may be proven either right or wrong. Just as it is fair to impeach a witness by showing that they have a demonstrable history of lying, one may impeach opinions expressed by an individual by showing a pattern of predictive errors.

Where there are disagreements about facts, standard form is a presentation of evidence. In some cases, there may be legitimate disagreements. An example of that happened in the interchange between Buzz and Hew concerning the language of the teaching material for preK-6 kids. As became apparent, Hew was reading an earlier version of the material and Buzz was reading a newer one. Buzz was of the opinion that only the most recent version should be considered. Hew was more concerned about the attitude that allowed the earlier version to ever be released. Both of those opinions are worth considering, but could not even be discussed rationally without first sorting out the apparent factual discrepancy concerning the contents of the document.

If you read Henry V's post, he makes few if any statements of opinion. Instead, he makes some factual assertions, and asks some questions concerning the evidence supporting factual assertion that you have made. Do you reply to any of these? No. Instead you simply respond saying "That is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less." It may sound good, but it is an evasion, not a logical argument.

road kill
09-05-2009, 10:22 AM
You seem to have difficulty understanding the distinction between facts and opinions since you treat the terms almost as synonyms.

According to Merriam-Webster an opinion is defined as:

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge

A fact is defined as:

3 : the quality of being actual : actuality (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actuality) <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

An opinion may be based simply on faith or may be the product of detailed analysis of evidence. One may choose to value opinions more or less depending on how they are justified and/or the credibility of the person expressing them. However, they remain opinions. When I say that I believe that George Bush was one of the worst Presidents in the history of our country. I am clearly expressing an opinion.

If I say that George Bush became President in 2001 following an election where his opponent received a larger number of votes than Bush and the electoral college vote ultimately came down to the state of Florida where the Supreme Court determined that a recount could not be done despite the closeness of the vote, that is a statement of historic fact that can be demonstrated through any number of authoritative sources, including the certified voting results from each state and the written opinion of the Supreme Court.

One can legitimately have disagreements about both facts and opinions.

Where there are disagreements about opinion, standard form is for each party to provide some description of the thought process behind their opinion. It is possible that, through such an exchange, one or both parties may modify their opinions. It is also possible that some predictions that were originally expressed as opinions may be proven either right or wrong. Just as it is fair to impeach a witness by showing that they have a demonstrable history of lying, one may impeach opinions expressed by an individual by showing a pattern of predictive errors.

Where there are disagreements about facts, standard form is a presentation of evidence. In some cases, there may be legitimate disagreements. An example of that happened in the interchange between Buzz and Hew concerning the language of the teaching material for preK-6 kids. As became apparent, Hew was reading an earlier version of the material and Buzz was reading a newer one. Buzz was of the opinion that only the most recent version should be considered. Hew was more concerned about the attitude that allowed the earlier version to ever be released. Both of those opinions are worth considering, but could not even be discussed rationally without first sorting out the apparent factual discrepancy concerning the contents of the document.

If you read Henry V's post, he makes few if any statements of opinion. Instead, he makes some factual assertions, and asks some questions concerning the evidence supporting factual assertion that you have made. Do you reply to any of these? No. Instead you simply respond saying "That is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less." It may sound good, but it is an evasion, not a logical argument.

Yardley, your facts from your sources are not my facts from my sources.

I do not bother to read your bloviating anymore.
I have checked many of your "sources" for your facts.
They are no more definitve than mine.
("there are lies, damned lies & statistics")

So......you and your fellow idealogues can come at me and ironically discredit my sources, but it doesn't matter.

I get a number of PM's thanking me for standing up to you.
Which I am not, I am standing up for my vision of America, which is slightly different than yours.


I had to listen to the left complain about fabricted facts about President Bush for 8 years.
Your side still ruthlessly attacks S. Palin.

Now it's your turn.
Deal with it.

With secular progressive total wisdom lies in Harvard.
With my side, total wisdom lies with God.
Never the twain shall meet.

I owe you nothing, but as long as I see what I see here, I will keep coming.
If I have to go it alone I will.

But I will NEVER give up MY America........NEVER!!

I don't much care if you like my style.
I DO!!:D

"Keep on keepin' on," cause road kill says so!!":p
bob dylan, tangled up in blue

YardleyLabs
09-05-2009, 10:28 AM
Yardley, your facts from your sources are not my facts from my sources.

I do not bother to read your bloviating anymore.
I have checked many of your "sources" for your facts.
They are no more definitve than mine.
("there are lies, damned lies & statistics")

So......you and your fellow idealogues can come at me and ironically discredit my sources, but it doesn't matter.

I get a number of PM's thanking me for standing up to you.
Which I am not, I am standing up for my vision of America, which is slightly different than yours.


I had to listen to the left complain about fabricted facts about President Bush for 8 years.
Your side still ruthlessly attacks S. Palin.

Now it's your turn.
Deal with it.

With secular progressive total wisdom lies in Harvard.
With my side, total wisdom lies with God.
Never the twain shall meet.

I owe you nothing, but as long as I see what I see here, I will keep coming.
If I have to go it alone I will.

But I will NEVER give up MY America........NEVER!!

I don't much care if you like my style.
I DO!!:D

"Keep on keepin' on," cause road kill says so!!":p
bob dylan, tangled up in blue
I actually suspect that you haven't checked a fact since your elementary school teacher told you that 2 + 2 didn't equal five no matter what you thought.:rolleyes:

Have a nice day...

road kill
09-05-2009, 10:33 AM
I actually suspect that you haven't checked a fact since your elementary school teacher told you that 2 + 2 didn't equal five no matter what you thought.:rolleyes:

Have a nice day...

Anyone who questions my maturity need look no further than your post for proof of yours.
And this your post also smacks of dishonesty, because you do not really suspect that, it was just the first insult you could think of.
Thanks for proving my point!!

May God be with you!!

Personal insult regards!!:D



BTW---I have an EE from UW College of Engineering, no Harvard but.......

Roger Perry
09-05-2009, 10:50 AM
I had to listen to the left complain about fabricted facts about President Bush for 8 years.
Your side still ruthlessly attacks S. Palin.



What fabrcated facts? Bush lied about WMD's so he could invade Iraq.

Since Bush 41 beat back the Iraq military, they were not allowed to fly planes in Iraq. Most of their tanks were wiped out. Their army was almost wiped out. They had really no way to defend themselves in a war against America and that is why it was a cake walk for our troops to invade Iraq.

Bush said our main goal in invading Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden. How did that work for you. Even with illegal torture techniques Bush could still not find Bin Laden and later in his Presidency declared he was not really looking for him anymore.

Fact: Bush's failed economic policy almost ruined America. It put us in a recession and almost into a depression.

I do not know who you were listening to for 8 years about people complaining about Bush. It certainly was not here.

tpaschal30
09-05-2009, 02:49 PM
W

Bush said our main goal in invading Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden.

Please back that BS up. Bush said it was the 40 some UN sanctions violated.

Roger Perry
09-05-2009, 03:02 PM
Please back that BS up. Bush said it was the 40 some UN sanctions violated.

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military) operation Operation Enduring Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom), was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine) stated that, as policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administratio n), it would not distinguish between terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist) organisations and nations or governments that harbor them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

K G
09-05-2009, 03:42 PM
What fabrcated facts? Bush lied about WMD's so he could invade Iraq.

Bush 43 relied on faulty intel to invade Iraq....calling it a "lie" makes you look even more petty, Roger...


Since Bush 41 beat back the Iraq military, they were not allowed to fly planes in Iraq.

This has got to be the most assinine comment I've EVER read on this board.


Most of their tanks were wiped out. Their army was almost wiped out. They had really no way to defend themselves in a war against America and that is why it was a cake walk for our troops to invade Iraq.

I'm guessing you don't know any Iraqi veterans, do you, Roger...."cake walk"....I was wrong above...THIS is the most assinine comment I've ever read on this board....:rolleyes:....check this link, Roger, for some details on the first "cake walk" at Fallujah...http://home.comcast.net/~ejwoodall/Battle_of_Fallujah.html


Bush said our main goal in invading Afghanistan was to go after Bin Laden. How did that work for you. Even with illegal torture techniques Bush could still not find Bin Laden and later in his Presidency declared he was not really looking for him anymore.

The man has to live in seclusion, moving from cave to cave, night after night, always fearing for his life, knowing that right around the next crag could be a Hellfire missle fired by a Predator that he never heard or saw...I'm sure the cuisine he enjoys every day is of four-star quality. I hear roots and grubs make for nice fare if you have to live among the rocks...;-)

Can you honestly, sanely, say that YOU expected those interrogations were designed to find bin Laden? If you believe that, you've been watching too much CNN, Roger....and I suspect that Bush 43 was very happy to know that bin Laden was living in the conditions described in the previous paragraph. I know I am.


Fact: Bush's failed economic policy almost ruined America. It put us in a recession and almost into a depression.

You just don't get it, do you, Roger? GREED, pure and simple, bipartisan and non-denominational, and manipulation of loopholes in laws created BEFORE Bush 43 was President caused this mess. To blame Bush 43's economic policy solely and completely is just plain ignorant.


I do not know who you were listening to for 8 years about people complaining about Bush. It certainly was not here.

You're right for once, Roger. Where were all you disgruntled left-leaners before this board came into existence during the '08 election campaign? By your own admission you didn't vote for GWB either time, Roger. You had PLENTY of opportunity to shout to the rafter about hiim before BHO was elected; why are you doing it now? Because BHO is not getting the job done after all the "CHANGE WE CAN LIVE WITH" was promised. You and every other Democrat ought to be pizzed beyond words about the unkept promises and misdirection his administration is furthering. Don't wonder why Potus Place has picked up steam since BHO became President...I'm sure it's merely coincidental ....where's that LMAO icon when you need it....


The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military) operation Operation Enduring Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom), was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine) stated that, as policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administratio n), it would not distinguish between terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist) organisations and nations or governments that harbor them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Ahhh...that always reliable "wikipedia"....funny how 'bout the only place anyone can find Wiki used as a "credible" resource is on this board....:D:D:D

kg

YardleyLabs
09-05-2009, 04:01 PM
...


Ahhh...that always reliable "wikipedia"....funny how 'bout the only place anyone can find Wiki used as a "credible" resource is on this board....:D:D:D

kg

Maybe This is a more credible source: Transcript of George Bush remarks minutes after launching attacks on Afghanistan, 10/7/2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.bush.transcript/)

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

"These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

....

"More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network. And return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in their country.

"None of these demands was met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.

"By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

"Initially the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. "

tpaschal30
09-05-2009, 04:03 PM
The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military) operation Operation Enduring Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom), was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).
The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine) stated that, as policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administratio n), it would not distinguish between terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist) organisations and nations or governments that harbor them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

My Bad! I was thinking Iraq!

K G
09-05-2009, 04:09 PM
Maybe This is a more credible source: Transcript of George Bush remarks minutes after launching attacks on Afghanistan, 10/7/2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.bush.transcript/)

"On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

"These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime.

....

"More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network. And return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in their country.

"None of these demands was met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.

"By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

"Initially the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice. "

Somebody help me remember the OUTRAGE that was expressed against Bush 43 for this directive....someone...anyone...Bueller??

;-)............

kg

YardleyLabs
09-05-2009, 04:26 PM
Somebody help me remember the OUTRAGE that was expressed against Bush 43 for this directive....someone...anyone...Bueller??

;-)............

kg
I can assure you that I never expressed any outrage about invading Afghanistan. In fact, 82 million people reportedly watched the President's address as he issued his ultimatum to the Taliban days earlier and virtually every editorial board in the country praised his actions (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/bush_9-21.html). (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec01/bush_9-21.html)

The PR problems didn't really start until, less than two months following the beginning of actions in Afghanistan, the Administration began shifting its focus to Iraq which had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks. There it took the administration 1 1/2 years to overcome massive hostility to the idea of an attack of Iraq. During the 1 1/2 years, the administration gave less and less attention to actually pursuing the goals stated by the President on October 7, contributing directly to the problems that exist in Afghanistan today. [By the way, RK, this paragraph is an example of opinion, not fact. The first paragraph is an example of fact.;-)]

K G
09-05-2009, 07:32 PM
I'm not talking about you with regard to "outrage" over invading Afghanistan, Jeff...but I think you know that...;-)

kg

YardleyLabs
09-05-2009, 08:10 PM
I'm not talking about you with regard to "outrage" over invading Afghanistan, Jeff...but I think you know that...;-)

kg
No, Keith, I didn't think you were accusing me. I actually don't think there was anything that happened during the Bush administration that met with such universal approval as the stance taken on October 7, 2001. That was the peak point for his approval ratings with large majorities from all ends of the political spectrum supporting our action in Afghanistan. Even France provided military support and most of the Arab countries were supportive as well. It was the move against Iraq that destroyed that support.

subroc
09-06-2009, 07:16 PM
I don't really know but it looks to me like the Brits are calling him a liar.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211495/No-10-turns-Obama-Clinton-criticising-decision-release-Lockerbie-bomber.html