Here's proof that President Dubya lied to the American People:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4765058.stm" target=_blank onclick="javascript launchAVConsoleStory'4767180'; return false;"> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4765058.stm" target=_blank onclick="javascript launchAVConsoleStory'4767180'; return false; - Watch President Bush being briefed about Hurricane Katrina
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm" target=_blank onclick="javascript launchAVConsoleStory'4767180'; return false;">

Imagine if you had a relative who was killed in New Orleans....

Wonder if they know difference between truth & lies any more?

I'm sick of the lot of them.

We need a new World leader....

sleeper wrote: I've lost faith in all poloticians, especially those in the most responsable jobs as they seem the least responsable people about.

same- yeah

Empathy wrote: The truth is the blame for the tragedy of errors that was Katrina lies on many people. Ray Nagin absolutely dropped the ball evacuating the city, for one. Everyone's angry that the Army Corps of Engineers didn't build a levee system that could withstand a hurricane of that intensity. I don't recall anyone pointing fingers that the World Trade Center wasn't rebuilt to withstand an impact from a more modern airplane than a 707. There is blame to be shared, for sure. I think a better question is are we actually learning anything from the experience? Finger-pointing is the easy part. These days, it seems to be rare that we actually move past that phase.

I'm not on about blaming people for the tragedy,I am concerned with the fact that we have definite proof that he has lied.

Politicians lie. Get used to it.

To quote KC: "That is a fact - of life."

Power corrupts..

We let our leaders lie to us for two reasons:

1) Enough people have faith in their leaders to vote them into power and give them a mandate to lie further. For some the idea of their president lying is so unpallatable that they live in denial of any wrong doing on his part.

2) WTF are we going to do about it anyway??

Basically I believe the true agendas of our leaders are not even known to us. Some weeks ago evidence was leaked to Channel 4 news in the UK that Bush and Blair had already agreed a date for war with Iraq, regardless of any UN decision. Blair had previously said that no such agreement had taken place. He lied to us. That was a BIG lie, and since that news report there has been no mention of it.

I used to be amember of the Labour party. Now I will not vote as I do not support organised crime. Thats what our leaders are. Criminals.

IMO..

Yet Empathy is correct when he says that people only voice outrage when they are directly affected.

Democracy wins out over dictatorship for one reason alone. If you dont like the crooks who are in government you can vote another bunch in.

Unless of course the job of government is handed to an individual by a court in a state where a relation happens to be the governour. But hey I'm probably just being cynical. That would never happen....

^ I wouldn't dare..

When was this pic taken then?

To think that the former scourge of PA looked like such a nice boy!

How many pessimistic people!!

And how many commonplaces!!

Ahhh, do is this the destiny of western countries?

C'mon

Andrea Cortese wrote: How many pessimistic people!! And how many commonplaces!! Ahhh, do is this the destiny of western countries? C'mon

I see Mr Burlesconi has been bribing the husband of one of our senior ministers. How naughty of him..

Still, I guess crooks of a feather flock together.

There is a lot of pessimism, you're right of course, but in terms of our leaders what is there specifically to be optimistic about? World peace? No. The environment? No. Civil liberties? No, at least not here. Help me out!...  

Syzygy wrote: The question isn't so much why do we let them lie to us, but why are we surprised when it happens?

I think we Europeans are naturally more sceptical of those in power, than Americans. Thats my perception anyway. Any thoughts on that from our US contributors? Bearing in mind that was not intended as a dig at America..  

The only surprise for me, is as you suggest Chris, when others are surprised by it!

Empathy wrote: Blacksword wrote: Syzygy wrote: The question isn't so much why do we let them lie to us, but why are we surprised when it happens? I think we Europeans are naturally more sceptical of those in power, than Americans. Thats my perception anyway. Any thoughts on that from our US contributors? Bearing in mind that was not intended as a dig at America..   No misconstued dig at America taken. Not that I haven't made my fair share of them myself I do think that's a bit of a misconception, however. There's plenty of regions in the U.S. in whch a majority of the public has a healthy skepticism of government. I firmly believe it's directly proportional to education. Those that are naturally curious about how things got "the way they are", pursue education, whether formalized or self-administered. They also tend to listen to Prog. The more informed you are, the more you can recognize when you're being manipulated.

I agree with that!

I'm aware that anti war feeling in the US is rife at the moment. You have lost over 2000 servicemen in Iraq, and I'm sure that must have some baring on that. Anti war feeling has always been high here, but that seems to be more to do with the percieved illegality of the conflict.

Do you think, when Bush finishes this term, the Republicans will get in again??

Short answer?

Because we expect them to, and because moral standards are declining, IMO.

Empathy wrote: Blacksword wrote: I'm aware that anti war feeling in the US is rife at the moment. You have lost over 2000 servicemen in Iraq, and I'm sure that must have some baring on that. Anti war feeling has always been high here, but that seems to be more to do with the percieved illegality of the conflict. Do you think, when Bush finishes this term, the Republicans will get in again?? There were plenty of people here (myself included) who were against the Iraq war the moment it became clear that the "WMD immanent threat" premise was a smokescreen. I don't think the Republicans will retain the executive office come 2008. The pendulum seems to be firmly swinging in the opposite direction, as it tends to do here. Our (Massachussetts) "beloved" Mormon, anti-gay rights Governor, Mitt Romney appears to be gearing up for a 2008 Presidential bid. Frankly, I hope he does, because there's no way the midwest and the south will vote for a "city slicker" like him. So, I predict a Democrat in office come '08. But please, anyone but Hillary Clinton! Then the pendulum will start swinging the opposite direction, and everyone will be aggravated by the "wishy-washy" Democrats. Especially since it's more than likely the Republicans will retain control of the Legislative branch. Then nothing will get done! Isn't democracy wonderful? That's why I'm a card-carrying Libertarian.

Oh yes. So fair and uncomplicated. Freedom for all!!

Especially those with sh!t loads of money....

Communism never succeded largely because it was always imposed as the result either of a violent uprising or following invasion and occupation by a more powerful state - basically, by military force. Why the USA thinks that democracy (more specifically, a consumer capitalist friendly oligarchy) can be successfully imposed by military force is mystifying, and why the British government goes along with this is even more so.

Sigh, it doesn't matter anymore. From what I've been hearing, the U.S. will lose so much power in the coming years due to outsourcing, and Americans won't know how to handle it. ever since our inception, we've been on top. Will that last forever? One could argue it's the best country for the richer of civilians to live in, but at what price?

I was just reading the paper today, and there was and editorial about Guantanimo Bay, and the disgusting acts committed there. I wouldn't mind it as much if they were proven terrorists, but so far I've yet to see one shred of evidence. If there is any, our leaders have know idea how to handle it. They never come out with evidence for anything! They always just say, "We have evidence. Trust us," or they'll say "We can't do it for national security reasons." We have no security! We are as vulnerable as a newborn child, and they know it.

Syzygy wrote: Communism never succeded largely because it was always imposed as the result either of a violent uprising or following invasion and occupation by a more powerful state - basically, by military force. Why the USA thinks that democracy (more specifically, a consumer capitalist friendly oligarchy) can be successfully imposed by military force is mystifying, and why the British government goes along with this is even more so.

Mystifying? Perhaps -- unless they're only there to secure "their" oil supply.

(Oh what a cynic am I!)

Just to play devil's advocate here, Syzygy, what about the examples of (West) Germany and Japan?

Didn't the US arguably "successfully impose democracy via military force" there?

Peter wrote: Syzygy wrote: Communism never succeded largely because it was always imposed as the result either of a violent uprising or following invasion and occupation by a more powerful state - basically, by military force. Why the USA thinks that democracy (more specifically, a consumer capitalist friendly oligarchy) can be successfully imposed by military force is mystifying, and why the British government goes along with this is even more so. Mystifying? Perhaps -- unless they're only there to secure "their" oil supply. (Oh what a cynic am I!)   Just to play devil's advocate here, Syzygy, what about the examples of (West) Germany and Japan? Didn't the US arguably "successfully impose democracy via military force" there?

Technically speaking Germany already was a democracy, and what difference did the Americans make to the Japanese administration?

Besides, in this case both Japan and Germany attacked the allies in an attempt to expand their empire/reich.

sleeper wrote: Peter wrote: Syzygy wrote: Communism never succeded largely because it was always imposed as the result either of a violent uprising or following invasion and occupation by a more powerful state - basically, by military force. Why the USA thinks that democracy (more specifically, a consumer capitalist friendly oligarchy) can be successfully imposed by military force is mystifying, and why the British government goes along with this is even more so. Mystifying? Perhaps -- unless they're only there to secure "their" oil supply. (Oh what a cynic am I!)   Just to play devil's advocate here, Syzygy, what about the examples of (West) Germany and Japan? Didn't the US arguably "successfully impose democracy via military force" there? Technically speaking Germany already was a democracy, and what difference did the Americans make to the Japanese administration? Besides, in this case both Japan and Germany attacked the allies in an attempt to expand their empire/reich.

Technically, yes -- but not effectively.

A huge one -- from miltary rule/monarchy to a constitutional democracy.

(Note that I don't support the US/British presence in Iraq on that basis. I believe it's all about oil over there, in any case.)

But enough, for me -- I don't usually like to talk politics, etc here.

Peter wrote: sleeper wrote: Peter wrote: Syzygy wrote: Communism never succeded largely because it was always imposed as the result either of a violent uprising or following invasion and occupation by a more powerful state - basically, by military force. Why the USA thinks that democracy (more specifically, a consumer capitalist friendly oligarchy) can be successfully imposed by military force is mystifying, and why the British government goes along with this is even more so. Mystifying? Perhaps -- unless they're only there to secure "their" oil supply. (Oh what a cynic am I!)   Just to play devil's advocate here, Syzygy, what about the examples of (West) Germany and Japan? Didn't the US arguably "successfully impose democracy via military force" there? Technically speaking Germany already was a democracy, and what difference did the Americans make to the Japanese administration? Besides, in this case both Japan and Germany attacked the allies in an attempt to expand their empire/reich. Technically, yes -- but not effectively. A huge one -- from miltary rule/monarchy to a constitutional democracy. (Note that I don't support the US/British presence in Iraq on that basis. I believe it's all about oil over there, in any case.) But enough, for me -- I don't usually like to talk politics, etc here.

On this note we agree, and I believe that Germanys democracy was as effective as any other western countries at the time that the Nazi's were voted in, but I doubt it afterwords.

sleeper wrote: Peter wrote: sleeper wrote: Peter wrote: Syzygy wrote: Communism never succeded largely because it was always imposed as the result either of a violent uprising or following invasion and occupation by a more powerful state - basically, by military force. Why the USA thinks that democracy (more specifically, a consumer capitalist friendly oligarchy) can be successfully imposed by military force is mystifying, and why the British government goes along with this is even more so. Mystifying? Perhaps -- unless they're only there to secure "their" oil supply. (Oh what a cynic am I!)   Just to play devil's advocate here, Syzygy, what about the examples of (West) Germany and Japan? Didn't the US arguably "successfully impose democracy via military force" there? Technically speaking Germany already was a democracy, and what difference did the Americans make to the Japanese administration? Besides, in this case both Japan and Germany attacked the allies in an attempt to expand their empire/reich. Technically, yes -- but not effectively. A huge one -- from miltary rule/monarchy to a constitutional democracy. (Note that I don't support the US/British presence in Iraq on that basis. I believe it's all about oil over there, in any case.) But enough, for me -- I don't usually like to talk politics, etc here. On this note we agree, and I believe that Germanys democracy was as effective as any other western countries at the time that the Nazi's were voted in, but I doubt it afterwords.

Re that, see this:

http://www.historystudystop.co.uk/php/displayarticle.php?article=66&topic=meu - http://www.historystudystop.co.uk/php/displayarticle.php?art icle=66&topic=meu

TTYL!

I like very much western countries!

I'm very happy and lucky to live here!

I'm very happy and lucky that my country (recently, though) went out of poverty!

I disagree with people that always criticize and stigmatize west.

I'm proud to be of christian faith and christian tradition. There are not only bad things to point out!

As you can see, I go often upstream! 

P.S. let point out the positive things! I believe there are lots of positive things in our history, even in our present!

Andrea Cortese wrote: I like very much western countries! I'm very happy and lucky to live here! I'm very happy and lucky that my country (recently, though) went out of poverty! I disagree with people that always criticize and stigmatize west. I'm proud to be of christian faith and christian tradition. There are not only bad things to point out! As you can see, I go often upstream!  P.S. let point out the positive things! I believe there are lots of positive things in our history, even in our present!

So do I.

But dont fall into 'their' trap. 'They' want you to be philosophical and upbeat about what you do have, preferably to a point where you are unable to see any bad. Being grateful for what you have is not a reason to ignore certain critical things in our society which should be a lot better!!

I'm not ignoring anything!

I've pointed out that too often people ignore the positive things and see only the bad in their own traditions, in their governments, in what it should be their religious faiths et cetera.

                                                              UPWARD!

                                                  _

                                        _

                                 _

                   and...

onward...

Andrea Cortese wrote: I'm not ignoring anything! I've pointed out that too often people ignore the positive things and see only the bad in their own traditions, in their governments, in what it should be their religious faiths et cetera.

Fair enough, but this is gloomy thread focussing on the negative!  Kindly take you optimism elsewhere..

Peter wrote:                                                               UPWARD!                                                   _                                         _                                  _                    and... onward...

Post of the Year!

Empathy wrote: "My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!" - Kodos

You sure it wasnt Kang?

I am absolutely not surprised Bush lied. I live in Houston, Texas so this disaster has affected me personally, and let me tell you, I hear a lot of Bush blame about the whole situation. It sure would have been nice if he planned a little more ahead, it could have saved me that 8 hour trip to go 60 miles. I'm sure many others, like those who got stuck in so much traffic that it took 24 hours to get 20 miles, would have liked to know there was no planning of such a massive evacuation before hand.

What do the politicians care? The hurricane didn't touch them. Ofcourse I got the best of the situation since I didn't lose my home like many innocent and unfortunate people, so I havn't much room to complain.

sleeper wrote: Empathy wrote: "My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!" - Kodos You sure it wasnt Kang?

If you're like me and understand this quote, it can only mean one thing... You watch to much TV.

Rust wrote: sleeper wrote: Empathy wrote: "My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!" - Kodos You sure it wasnt Kang?   If you're like me and understand this quote, it can only mean one thing... You watch to much TV.

Doesnt everyone watch the Simpsons

Politicians are only human and they have to put a positive shine on everything to keep their jobs. They don't have all the information and they're always being recorded so sometimes they're bound to say things that are daft. I'm sure I'd say a lot of daft things if I were a politician.

The truth is that people who put any value on honesty will never get to be politicians and they don't want to be either. The funny thing is that given the choice between Bush or Blair telling lies and the Dalai Lama telling the truth, the people will always fall for Bush and Blair. Why oh why or why?  I think it's because people don't mind lying as long as they don't get financially any worse off from it.

Honesty in politics really doesn't pay off. If George Bush said "sorry I made a mistake about hurricane Katrina" or if Blair said "I exagerated the case for Iraq and I'm sorry" then I don't think they'd last very long in office. People expect to be told that everything is OK even when we know that they're not. Anybody who tells things like they really are will be out of office before you can say "Monica Lewinsky".

Peace Frog wrote: We let our leaders lie to us because the only ones who care that they're lying refuse to vote, and even if they did vote it wouldn't make a difference because we'd still have leaders that would lie to us anyway. There's no escape and we can't do anything about it.

Well, we can always go to the Phillipines and claim one of those million islands, and be the leader there. I would call the land, Progressia! It would always have honest leaders, like me.  

Rust wrote: Peace Frog wrote: We let our leaders lie to us because the only ones who care that they're lying refuse to vote, and even if they did vote it wouldn't make a difference because we'd still have leaders that would lie to us anyway. There's no escape and we can't do anything about it. Well, we can always go to the Phillipines and claim one of those million islands, and be the leader there. I would call the land, Progressia! It would always have honest leaders, like me.

Sweet! Can I be vice-president?

timothy leary wrote: I think Jimmy Carter was a fairly truthful American president. Unfortunately, he is remembered for the recession during his presidency. George, on the other hand, is the son of a liar. If Oliver North didn`t take the fall, George Sr. probably would have been impeached.

Agreed. Jimmy Carter was a great president who had a great sense of human rights and morality. The media tried to make him look bad, but he really was a great leader and imo showed what American Democracy was about.

Bob Greece wrote: Politicians are only human and they have to put a positive shine on everything to keep their jobs. They don't have all the information and they're always being recorded so sometimes they're bound to say things that are daft. I'm sure I'd say a lot of daft things if I were a politician. The truth is that people who put any value on honesty will never get to be politicians and they don't want to be either. The funny thing is that given the choice between Bush or Blair telling lies and the Dalai Lama telling the truth, the people will always fall for Bush and Blair. Why oh why or why?  I think it's because people don't mind lying as long as they don't get financially any worse off from it. Honesty in politics really doesn't pay off. If George Bush said "sorry I made a mistake about hurricane Katrina" or if Blair said "I exagerated the case for Iraq and I'm sorry" then I don't think they'd last very long in office. People expect to be told that everything is OK even when we know that they're not. Anybody who tells things like they really are will be out of office before you can say "Monica Lewinsky".

Couldn't agree more, Bob.

Jim Garten wrote: I think the bottom line is we allow our leaders to lie to us precisely because we are too lazy to get off our arses and try to change society for the better ourselves. It is much easier to elect a representative, allow him to lie through his teeth at us (whilst keeping the country going on a day to day basis - something many people seem to forget they do), then complain bitterly when power corrupts, than it is to actually stand for public office, attempt to resist the many temptations, lobbyists, focus groups, businessmen and moneymen and maintain personal integrity. Just a thought.

It's a great thought JIm, but you cant ignore lobbyists, focus groups, moneymen media etc. Industry and the media run our political circus. You would have to change the entire political culture in the country. You try and run a country without putting the moneymen first, and playing the media, you wont be in office very long. Step too far out of line and you could be 'dealt with' very severely.

Empathy wrote: Ah, finally someone as jaded and disillusioned as me!

Yeah join the club. Cynics anonymous.

The Wizard wrote: timothy leary wrote: I think Jimmy Carter was a fairly truthful American president. Unfortunately, he is remembered for the recession during his presidency. George, on the other hand, is the son of a liar. If Oliver North didn`t take the fall, George Sr. probably would have been impeached. Agreed. Jimmy Carter was a great president who had a great sense of human rights and morality. The media tried to make him look bad, but he really was a great leader and imo showed what American Democracy was about.

Jimmy Carter was a terrible, indecisive president.  I am democrat and I still think he was bad.  He was so indecisive and had no political acumen whatsoever.  (of course, he was the best thing we'd get till Clinton)

I'd take the Nixon/Ford mess over Carter any day.  The man couldnt even get a DEMOCRATIC congress to pass his agenda.

Blacksword wrote: Jim Garten wrote: I think the bottom line is we allow our leaders to lie to us precisely because we are too lazy to get off our arses and try to change society for the better ourselves. It is much easier to elect a representative, allow him to lie through his teeth at us (whilst keeping the country going on a day to day basis - something many people seem to forget they do), then complain bitterly when power corrupts, than it is to actually stand for public office, attempt to resist the many temptations, lobbyists, focus groups, businessmen and moneymen and maintain personal integrity. Just a thought. It's a great thought JIm, but you cant ignore lobbyists, focus groups, moneymen media etc. Industry and the media run our political circus. You would have to change the entire political culture in the country. You try and run a country without putting the moneymen first, and playing the media, you wont be in office very long. Step too far out of line and you could be 'dealt with' very severely.

Id love to say "dont buy the paper or listen to the news". Unfortunately, ppl have already done that, and they havent been able to convince others that it is not exactly how a person can c the world.  I trying to say that just not doing something dosent work... You need mass and continuous uprising for that to happen, and ppl are simply too apathetic for that.

Why not... Destroy capitalism..... And become a socialist