Well, coming from the most hated country on the planet right now, I can say that "supporting" a government is a pretty hazy issue. Here, we basically have 2 people to vote for for president, unless one wants to throw their vote away on a third party, or Willie Nelson (he gets 15,000 votes every election). That's not a lot of choice. In 2000, it was Bush vs. Gore... two of the worst choices in American history. That's why it was such a split down the middle, both candidates sucked. Same with 2004. If Howard Dean would've won the democratic primary, I probably would've voted for him, but Kerry did. Kerry vs. Bush was also an awful choice. I voted for Bush, because I thought we were already in a hole with Iraq and we needed the people who started it to finish it. Unfortunately, it's still a problem...

so you're guilty too

Haha, I'm the ONLY person I know who didn't vote for Bush in 2004 ... then again I do live in Texas. I really wanted one of those papers from the UK that said something like "How can 58 million be so stupid" so I can frame it and hang it on the wall.

So you really think Kerry would've done a better job? They're basically the same person, that's the reason the democrats pushed Kerry so hard. He was the worst democratic nominee.

I'm not looking for an argument here but yes I do think Kerry would have done a better job in office.

everyone else but bush would

God, I've been sooo ill over the past few days...sympathy please

I just wanted to say that I don't think ignorance of the truth can be used to redeem Tony Blair either. He knew that the American government was tailoring the 'facts' around their foreign policy and he was supporting them. Take a look a the Downing Street Memo - it explicitly says that this is what the American government was doing. Also, take the example of people like David Kelly (weapons inspector, expert on WMD) who objected to the contents of a dossier on WMD in Iraq. The dossier claimed that Iraq was capable of firing battlefield biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order to use them - Kelly complained about this to his superiors but MI6 said it was satisfied with the claim. Kelly was later sent to Iraq to try and find any trace of WMD and to inspect buildings that had been identified as weapons factories by the government...this is what he said:

"They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."

I use this example because the WMD thing was used by the government as one of the main reasons for invading Iraq.I realise that this reflects one persons opinion, but he was an expert who went to Iraq to look for WMD and found nothing....he told the government and they continued to use the 'possession' of WMD as a valid reason for the invasion. Examples like these prove to me that alleged ignorance of the truth cannot justify the decisions made because people were giving valid objections to the 'intelligence' the government was using and they ignored these objections because they didn't fit with the government's plans.

By the way, I found a website last week (kind of sparked off my thoughts on the matter!), don't know of you'd be interested:

mo-truth.blogspot.com

They are really down on the fact that politicians lie all the time and get away with it. It's interesting because they are trying to get a law passed through parliament (which they created) entitled the 'Misrepresentation of the People Act'. Basically, they seem to be interviewing lots of MPs whilst filming them and at the same time they are trying to find someone who'll help them get it passed. They write down everything that they do on their website...it's actually really funny...this is a section from last week:

"I’m pleased to report yesterday’s meet with the Lord Chancellor went extremely well.

This may have had something to do with us informing reception staff at the Department of Constitutional Affairs that we were a low grade pornography outfit (if only - Ed) and there to film his Lordship. Our pneumatic production lady winked once and smiled at them knowingly - heels click-clacking on the floor as we were marched to the lift.

Falconer tore our proposed Bill to shreds in the nicest possible way. Frankly, we loved him. Had we been a porn unit on location this would've been a soft-focus romantic orgy."

seriously? is this some kind of 'spam'? like investigating how people react to a certain topic or some shit, or just to spread propaganda.

Random person 'Green' joining only to post the same messages as on other random forums just under a different name (see my post on previous page)

http://www.gumtree.com/london/90/7693690.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gain+ ... n&filter=0
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22agend ... et+Memo%22)%22&hl=en&filter=0

I'm interested in the bloody topic, this is why I want to talk about it. Aren't you interested? If you aren't you don't have to read the thread

We all know politicians lie. That's likely to never end. You all are welcome to continue this discussion if you want, just keep it civilised. Politics has a way of firing people up very easily, I've seen it countless times. So long as this stays conservative and not a "my country is better than yours" battle I'll leave it open.

Thanks, I'm not interested in nationalism so I won't be going down that road. I'm more concerned with the increasing alienation of the public from the government due to spin and deceit

i can't recall a moment in history where people weren't deceived by their leaders.. im afraid you can only assume you're not being deceived, but it's impossible to know for certain.

apparently there is a parliamentary 'Committee on Standards in Public Life'...the problem is that all the committee can do is report back and make recommendations to the PM....decisions to act upon these recommendations lie completely with the PM. This is obsurd...we need something independent