Illusion 105.5

2004-4-12 06:20:00

Skip writes:
How could Bush not know he was lying, when he and Powell knew the letter from Niger was faked, for a YEAR before they used it. When Powell was going to go to the UN, he'd said he was not going to use that bs letter because like everyone else, he knew it was forged!

The VP even sent the Wilson to Africa to find out, and he came back reporting that the guy who'd signed the letter, had left that company ten years ago! So they all knew it was a fake even before experts proved it to be.


JJ:
This is a very inaccurate rendering of what Powell said. He went to the U.N. with many documents and only used about 10-15% of them. He felt the ones he did not use which included the Niger documents were either not as applicable or valid as the ones he did. Many of these unused documents could have been used to make a case against Saddam Hussein.

To check out the documents you mention the CIA sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to check them out. Wilson is a Bush hater who publicly stated he was looking forward to the day when Carl Rove would be sent off to prison. When he returned from Africa he provided no hard copy, or written report but only an oral report. Wilson's venom and stated hatred against the Bush administration is enough to make one question how much he, or his associates, may have distorted the truth since no hard evidence was delivered. For instance, the Media was told that his wife was operating undercover for 30 years - a difficult feat when she was only 40 and would have had to been an operative when she was ten.

Here is the controversial statement that Bush made in his State of the Union address Jan 28, 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Because Wilson who made an oral case that some documents supporting this were not authentic you and others accuse Bush of lying.

One also has to accuse Tony Blair of lying for on 24 September 2002, in an address to the House of Commons, Blair said:

"We know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful."

Now here is the missing piece of information that Bush critics leave out. Blair has maintained that it had other sources than the supposed erroneous documents. To this day, Blair has maintained that they have sources that prove Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase uranium from Africa but cannot release them as it would "compromise our sources."

Even though Wilson's report indicated there was some inaccurate information around the Iraq/Africa connection it is also quite credible that Bush believed Blair's classified information when he shared it with him.

You have thus provided us with another example where, in most probability Bush at worst made a mistake, but a mistake is called a lie.

That said, I think you are missing the point of the discussion here. We are talking about common causes of illusion in the world today. One of the common causes is when an accuser finds a mistake or error in the words of another and calls a mistake a lie. If people believe a mistake is a lie then this illusion which is created can lead to separateness, hate and distrust. I used Bush as an example because I have never seen so many accusations of lying over simple mistakes or just mean spiritedness on the part or the accusers. The result of this illusion has been tremendous unwarranted division and seething hate among the people toward our president.

If people would see Bush or anyone else as they really are and give the benefit of the doubt then the spirit of goodwill would be much more pervasive.

Let me repeat. I am not saying that Bush never lies. If you present hard evidence of a lie or two nothing would change in the lesson presented here. If we take a mistake and call it a lie illusion is created that only makes matters worse in getting to the truth.

Skip:
They would not have pulled off 911. There can be no doubt at all, that 911 was done by the Bush Crime Family.

JJ:
Are you with the same group who is calling Bush so stupid that he doesn't know which way is up? Yet on the other hand you say he is an evil genius who planned and pulled off 911so flawlessly that even the brilliant Jimmy Carter has not been able to find him out. I suppose you could be tricked into thinking that Elmer Fudd ran the Nazi war machine instead of Hitler.

Paul writes:
Overall - I'm more liberal leaning than conservative - and never really knew anyone who would be a conservative until I moved to America - and I'm constantly surprised at how conservative some people are here. But I guess I am open minded enough to read stuff on Keysters from time to time.

JJ:
You've got me curious. Where did you come from?

Actually the current take on what is conservative and liberal is quite upside down. By the dictionary definition a conservative is one who desires to conserve the past, the status quo and keep things going as they are - one who holds to traditional values and dogmas.

Liberal is defined as: "Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."

Using this standard definition the Republicans are the more liberal and the Democrats the more conservative.

For instance the Republicans are behind the missile defense and a mission to Mars. This is not conservative but a very liberal adventure.

Bush wanted to change the face of the Middle East through regime change, but the Democrats want to conserve things and keep Saddam Hussein in power. Bush had a very liberal plan here.

The Republican party has both pro life and pro choice in leadership. Pro life people are not welcome in leadership among the Democrats. The tolerant or liberal party here is the Republicans.

Many Democrats want to conserve the environment exactly as nature creates it without change as if they have a dogmatic religious decree that must be followed. The Republicans are more liberal feeling that humanity can use the environment, change it yet develop the technology to improve it in the end.

As far as holding on to traditional religious beliefs the Republicans are probably more conservative, but this is one of the few areas.

As far as myself is concerned I am probably 75% liberal and 25% conservative. In would say Bush is 60% liberal 40% conservative. I'd put Bill Clinton as 40% liberal and 60% conservative. This is upside down from common thinking which follows Rush Limbaugh's definition of conservative and liberals.

Let's throw this question out to the group. Are you liberal or conservative. Why?

I can think of nothing less pleasurable than a life devoted to pleasure.
John D. Rockefeller (1839 - 1937)